appendix d tcrp research excerpts · this report uses extensive case studies to illustrate how...

Appendix D TCRP Research Excerpts The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place great demands on public transit systems. Current systems, many of which are in constant need of upgrading, must expand service areas, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research helps transit systems solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce resource-saving innovations. The Transportation Research Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The TCRP was established under Federal Transit Administration sponsorship in July 1992, as authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational challenges. TCRP research reports are overseen by project panels of transit experts for each given topic, and provide useful information to the full range of transit professional. These reports are obtainable by phoning the Transportation Research Board at (202) 334-2934, or via internet: http://www.trb.org/TRB/publications/Publications.asp. TRB granted RTA permission to reproduce the excerpts from these five TCRP reports. These particular reports provide industry findings on important topics which are addressed in Transit 2025. The research will hopefully invite further action that RTA and its stakeholders might consider taking to address these concerns in Greater Cleveland. TCRP Report 16 - Transit and Urban Form discusses the vital relationship between transit and land development, noting how transit and land use planning often impact one another. It explains the importance of close coordination between transit authorities and municipalities as their respective future plans are being made. TCRP Report 19 - Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops provides strategies to improve the safety, comfort and convenience for transit customers when boarding and alighting buses. RTA's Citizen's Advisory Board and Board of Trustees-sponsored Transit Waiting Environment Study (2003) draws upon this type of research. TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 20 - Transit-Focused Development gives lessons learned on the success of Transit Oriented Design (TOD) and other related transit-supportive development initiatives. TCRP Report 39 - The Costs of Sprawl - Revisited defines sprawl from a transportation context, and presents a compelling argument to reverse this trend via TOD. Greater Cleveland has experienced more than its share of sprawl, and this report helps RTA and its stakeholders better understand its causes and the ways by which to remediate it. TCRP Report 22 - The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities is a substantial body of work on this subject. The extent to which any transit system is woven into its community strongly influences its ability to improve the quality of life in that community. This report uses extensive case studies to illustrate how transit can play a much greater role in promoting livable communities. These and similar other reports are kept in RTA's Programming & Planning Dept. library.

http://www.trb.org/TRB/publications/Publications.asp

T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

Report 16

Transit and Urban Form

Volume 1

PART I Transit, Urban Form, and the Built Environment: A Summaryof Knowledge

PART II Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The LandUse Connection

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.Portland, OR

Subject Area

Public TransitPlanning and Administration

Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration inCooperation with the Transit Development Corporation

TRANSPORTATI ON RESEARCH BO ARDNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESSWashington, D.C. 1996

CONTENTS Part I Transit, Urban Form, and the Built Environment: ASummary of Knowledge

1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Summary1.1 Summary of Research Conducted for TCRP Project H-1, 11.2 Conclusions, 2

4 CHAPTER 2 The Influence of Land Use on Transit Patronage2.1 The Role of Urban Structure, 42.2 The Role of Density, 112.3 The Role of Land Use Mix and Urban Design, 172.4 Findings and Conclusions, 25

26 CHAPTER 3 Transit's Influence on Urban Form3.1 Rail Transit's Impact on Property Values, 263.2 Rail Transit's Impact on the Intensity of Development, 283.3 Rail Transit's Impact on Urban Structure, 293.4 Rail Transit's Impact on the Timing of Development, 313.5 A Paradigm for Transit Station-Area Development, 31

38 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part II Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: TheLand Use Connection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, E-1

1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction1.1 Report Organization, 5

5 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach and Hypotheses

8 CHAPTER 3 Demand Analysis3.1 Data Sources, 83.2 Relationships Among Variables, 93.3 Results, 17

36 CHAPTER 4 Hypothetical Corridor Demands4.1 Hypothetical Corridors, 364.2 Ridership in Hypothetical Corridors, 44

56 CHAPTER 5 The Cost of Providing Transit5.1 Light Rail Operating Cost Model, 565.2 Light Rail Capital Cost Model, 575.3 Calculation of Light Rail Cost for Hypothetical Lines, 585.4 Commuter Rail Operating Cost Model, 595.5 Commuter Rail Capital Cost Model, 615.6 Calculation of Commuter Rail Cost for Hypothetical Lines, 61

66 CHAPTER 6 Hypothetical Corridor Costs6.1 Light Rail Costs, 666.2 Commuter Rail Costs, 706.3 Establishing the Limits of Ridership, 766.4 Matching Ridership with Costs, 776.5 Light Rail Effectiveness and Efficiency, 786.6 Commuter Rail Effectiveness and Efficiency, 86

92 CHAPTER 7 Conclusions

APPENDIX A Ridership Models for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System:Influences of Built Environment and Other Factors onStation Passenger Trips, A1–A24

APPENDIX B Comparisons of the National and BART Models withChicago's Heavy and Commuter Rail, B1–B12

APPENDIX C List of Light Rail and Commuter Rail Lines, C1–C5

APPENDIX D Description of Data Collection and Processing for DemandAnalysis, D1–D7

APPENDIX E Characteristics of Hypothetical Rail Corridors, E1–E7

APPENDIX F Light Rail and Commuter Rail Cost Models, F1–F15

user

Text Box

** Excerpts in this Appendix

user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

Part III A Guidebook for Practitioners1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

4 CHAPTER 2 Basic Relationships Between Urban Form and PublicTransportation

Density or Compactness, 4CBD Size, 5Land Use Mix, 5Urban Design, 7

9 CHAPTER 3 Role of Transit in Regional PlanningCan Transit Still Play a Key Role in Long-Range Regional Planning?, 9

Multi-Centers, 11Linear Cities, 15Wedges and Corridors, 15Growth Boundaries, 15

Ensuring Cost-Effective Services, 15Make Transit the Primary Link, 15

Adopt a Transit First Policy, 15Provide High-Quality, Coordinated Service, 15Limit Freeway Construction, 17

Adopt Policies That Support Transit, 18Transit-Supportive Housing Policies, 18Transit-Supportive Shopping Center and Major Public Facility SitingPolicies, 18Transit-Supportive Tax Policies, 19

Integrate Transit-Land Use Planning and Implementation, 19

21 CHAPTER 4 The Role of Transit in Corridor PlanningOrigin-Related Factors, 21

Residential Density, 21Proximity to Rail Station, 21Parking and Feeder Bus Availability, 22

Destination-Related Factors, 22Employment Density, 22Proximity to Station, 23

Line-Haul-Related Factors, 24Length of Line, 24Balance of Origins and Destinations Along the Corridor, 24

What Are the Most Important Corridor Characteristics That Shape Transit'sEffectiveness?, 25What Are the Most Important Corridor Characteristics Affecting TransitCost-Efficiency?, 25

28 CHAPTER 5 Station Area Planning and DevelopmentPrinciples, 28

Encourage Employment and Residential Density Close to the Stations, 28Within the Higher-Density Station Areas, Plan for a Mix of Land Uses, 29Use Urban Design Features to Facilitate Pedestrian and Transit Travel, 29

Tools, 29Zoning, 29Strategic Timing of Station Area Development, 30Parking Management, 30Auto-Free Zones, 31Financial Arrangements, 31Station Area Planning and Design Guidelines, 31Public Agency Buildings and Leases in Station Areas, 31

32 CHAPTER 6 Conclusions

33 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part IV Public Policy and Transit-Oriented Development: SixInternational Case Studies

1 CHAPTER 1 Transit Oriented Development1.1 Introduction, 11.2 Summary of Principles, 11.3 Methods, 31.4 The Case Study Regions, 31.5 Report Organization, 5

7 CHAPTER 2 Houston Case Study2.1 Introduction, 72.2 The Houston Context, 82.3 Transit in Houston, 182.4 Transit and Urban Form, 272.5 Conclusions, 31

37 CHAPTER 3 Washington, D.C. Case Study3.1 Introduction, 373.2 Context for Station Area Development, 383.3 Station Area Development, 503.4 Conclusions, 65

71 CHAPTER 4 Portland Case Study4.1 Introduction, 714.2 The Portland Region, 744.3 Portland's Light Rail System, 774.4 Planning in the Portland Region, 794.5 Station Area Development Tools, 834.6 Station Area Stories, 894.7 Conclusions, 91

99 CHAPTER 5 Vancouver, B.C. Case Study5.1 Introduction, 995.2 Context for Station Area Development, 1015.3 Station Area Developments, 1125.4 Station Area Stories, 1205.5 Conclusions, 129

137 CHAPTER 6 Ottawa-Carleton Case Study6.1 Introduction, 1376.2 Regional Context, 1406.3 The Current OC Transpo System, 1436.4 Coordinated Land Use and Transportation Planning, 1486.5 Station Area Development, 1546.6 Station Area Development in a Regional Context, 1616.7 Conclusion, 166

173 CHAPTER 7 Curitiba Case Study7.1 Introduction, 1737.2 Context for Integrating Transit and Land Use Planning, 1757.3 Evolution of Integrated Planning in Curitiba, 1767.4 Land-Use Regulations and Supportive Policies, 1867.5 Ridership and Performance Benefits, 1907.6 Conclusion, 193

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Samuel N. Seskin is the principal author of this report.Robert Cervero and Jeffrey Zupan contributed to andclarified the text.

Judy S. Davis, Philip Hitt, Barbara Johnson, and others atParsons Brinckerhoff contributed to the editing, graphics,and production of the agency report.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to summarize the findingsand conclusions of TCRP Project H-1, Transit and UrbanForm, with the large body of literature described in theliterature review (TCRP Research Results Digest, No. 7,June 1995). In order not to duplicate the literature review,the researchers focus on a relatively small number ofstudies, most of them completed within the last 5 years, onthe ways in which "urban form" and public transportationinteract.

1.1 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED FORTCRP PROJECT H-1

Research for this project, fully described in othervolumes, focused on the following areas:

How Urban Form Influences Transit Demand

How do characteristics of urban form [e.g., residentialdensity, Central Business District (CBD) employmentsize and density] influence the demand for light rail andcommuter rail transit and the cost of providing thatservice?

Data used: Light rail boardings and transit informationfrom 11 light rail cities with 19 lines. Commuter railboardings and transit information from 6 commuter railcities with 47 lines. Employment and populationcharacteristics from 1990 Census. Cost information fromFederal Transit Administration reports, 1993 NationalTransit Database, and transit agencies.

Main findings: Residential densities have a significantinfluence on rail transit station boardings. Residentialdensities have more influence on light rail ridership andcosts than on commuter rail. Both the size and density of theCBD influence light rail ridership. CBD density is moreimportant for supporting commuter rail ridership than lightrail ridership. Other factors within the control of transitagencies, such as the availability of feeder bus service andpark-and-ride lots, also influence ridership.

Product: Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors:The Land Use Connection (Volume 1, Part II of this report).

How does the built environment near rail transitstations affect the mode of access and the size of thecatchment area?

Data used: Transit, regional land uses, and 1990 censusdata for Chicago [Metra commuter rail and Chicago TransitAuthority (CTA) rapid rail] and San Francisco [Bay AreaRapid Transit (BART)].

Main findings: Residents of higher density residentialareas are more likely to walk to transit. Nearly allcommuters walk to their destinations in CBDs, but 25 to 50percent ride buses at other destinations. Use of feeder busservice depends mainly on the level of service and parkingsupplies, not on the built environment. Catchment areas arelarger in more suburban areas and areas where parking isample.

Product: Mode of Access and Catchment Areas for RailTransit (unpublished).

Do neighborhood land use mix and urban designinfluence the demand for transit?

Data used: American Housing Survey for 1985. Transitand land use data for Chicago. Mail survey of residents andfield observation of urban design in 12 East Bay censustracts in San Francisco area.

Main findings: The types and mix of land uses influencethe demand for transit as well as the use of nonmotorizedmodes. Residents of "traditional" neighborhoods (i.e., pre-1950) are more likely to use nonautomotive modes for nonwork trips than residents of "suburban" neighborhoods (i.e.,post-1950). It is difficult to sort out the effects of land usemix and urban design because they are strongly correlatedwith density.

Product: Influence of Land Use Mix and NeighborhoodDesign on Transit Demand (unpublished).

How Transit Influences Land Uses

What public policies and institutions are needed fortransit-supportive development to occur near transitstations?

2

Data used: Published reports, agency records, interviews,and site visits to six case study cities: Houston, Texas;Washington, D.C.; Portland, Oregon; Vancouver, B.C.,Canada; Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario, Canada; and Curitiba,Brazil.

Main findings: Regions with successful transit-focuseddevelopment have the following characteristics:

• Commitment to a regional vision of high-capacitytransit connections between regional centers or indevelopment corridors,

• Strong, respected institutions that people trust to deliverservices,

• Political cultures that value transit,• High-quality transit service that attracts riders,• Regional growth that channels development to station

areas,• Transit stations located in areas where the market

supports development,• Regional policies that focus growth in transit corridors

and limit it elsewhere,• Station-area policies and programs to support private

sector investments and transit-friendly development,and

• Long-term commitment.

Product: Public Policy and Transit-Oriented Develop-ment: Six International Case Studies (Volume 2, Part IV ofthis report).

1.2 CONCLUSIONS

This summary of knowledge and the body of research(new and existing) that supports it provide empiricalevidence that transit and urban form relationships areimportant. The relationships are not as strong as a centuryago when new transit investments added significantaccessibility benefits and strongly influenced urbandevelopment patterns, or when transit disinvestments ofthree decades ago (e.g., replacing streetcar lines with newfreeways) added further impetus to automobile-orientedsuburban growth. Still, transit and urban form relationshipsmatter because, as demonstrated by the research, thereremains considerable elasticity in the relationship–theweight of evidence shows they continue to mutually affecteach other.

Examined separately, each direction of the transit andurban form interaction is significant. To examine the waysin which urban form affects transit patronage, break downthe term "urban form" into several elements. Doing so, it canbe seen that the density or compactness of an urban area hasthe dominant influence on transit use. The relationshipbetween residential densities, employment center densities,and transit patronage is robust. While this relationship is not

easily reduced to a single threshold, it operates consistentlyat many levels of density, in many types of neighborhoods,and across many employment centers.

Within compact urban regions, transit is extremelyeffective at serving the accessibility needs of CBDs—thedominant employment center in any region. However, in thefuture, as cities continue to evolve toward multiple centers,transit systems that link the central business district withsubregional employment centers will be especially costeffective, offering opportunities for two directional flows atall times of the day. Further, within compact urban regions,transit service in corridors that contain a variety ofresidential and nonresidential activities will prove especiallyattractive and competitive.

The mix of land uses and urban design features in transitcorridors also contributes to transit's attractiveness as amode of travel. The characteristics of areas around stationsstrongly influence the way in which patrons travel to andfrom transit. In employment centers, land use mix clearlycontributes to the increasing use of transit, just as inresidential neighborhoods, urban design that supportspedestrians clearly influences the mode of access to transit.Though the bundle of attributes that makes for a successful,pedestrian and transitfriendly station area or neighborhood isdifficult to break apart through statistical means, thepresence of these attributes clearly makes transit a moreattractive choice.

The accessibility advantage which transit can confer onparticular locations is capitalized by real estate markets intohigher property values and rents. This phenomenon is mostevident in cities with extensive rail transit systems. Thesmaller the system, the more important other factors becomein determining the development impacts of transit. A varietyof influences must be present, in addition to transit itself,before station-area development or redevelopment willoccur. A strong regional vision of a desired urban form,combined with political leadership willing to look at thelong-term benefits of a transit investment, is oneprerequisite. An efficient, extensive, and well-respectedtransit agency, working well with other institutions ofgovernment, is the second key element. The presence ofadequate sites at station areas, and a strong local andregional economy with well-functioning real estate anddevelopment markets, must also be present.

Lastly, a variety of programs and policies at the regional,local, and station-area levels must be developed and appliedcreatively. Behind many of these policies is the strategic useof public funds to leverage private investment.

Public policies can influence the scale, scope, and pace oftransit-urban form interactions. Pro-active initiatives by boththe public and private sectors can promote meaningfultransit and land use interactions and capitalize ondevelopment opportunities as they arise. All of this bodeswell for the future of coordinated transit and land useplanning and policymaking.

Although this research examined transit and urban formrelationships separately in each direction—these two forces

3

operate dynamically (see Figure 1). Transit investments caninfluence compact, mixed-use, and transit-supportivedevelopment. Such development, in turn, can induce transitridership. This symbiotic relationship is ongoing, withtransit and urban form continually reinforcing, reshaping,and helping to reconstitute each other.

In addition to clarifying the interactive nature of the rela-tionship between transit and land use, this summary ofknowledge offers a great deal of information on the specificmagnitude of these impacts. As a separate document in thisresearch project, a Guidebook for Practitioners (Volume 2,Part III of this report) was produced that contains practicalmethods resulting from the research summarized in thisreport. Rather than try to abstract from these findings, read-ers are referred to the Guidebook for Practitioners for a more

Figure 1. Transit development: Relationships.

concise presentation of the quantitative findings behind themany principles listed in this summary.

Sometimes science can only confirm intuitions. To saythat metropolitan areas are large, complex urban systemsthat are difficult to change comes as no surprise. Thus, toconclude that changes in urban form, or any of itsconstituent elements, are capable of making enormouschanges in metropolitan travel demand would bemisleading. Rather, it can be said that strategic changes inlocal and regional land use policies are capable ofinfluencing transit use as much as any other demandmanagement strategy likely to be implemented inmetropolitan America. They offer the additional and uniquebenefit of being long lasting in their effect. The builtenvironment is durable, and an environment built to supporttransit will continue to support transit for generations ofresidents to come. While a great deal of metropolitan areas'urban form is already in place, the fact remains thatthousands of individual investment decisions continue to bemade every year, every one of which contributes to theevolution of urban form in America. Under a different set ofrules and policies governing urban development, adifferently built environment would emerge that could bemuch more supportive of both existing transit investmentsand the potential for future ones.

The researchers conclude that meaningful coordination oftransit-urban form relationships must, in the future, takeplace within a larger systems context. Initiatives tocoordinate transit investments and urban developmentshould be framed more globally in terms of suchcomplementary initiatives as travel demand management(TDM) planning, road pricing, regional growthmanagement, and community redevelopment. Transit andurban form always have and always will best complementeach other when tied to a larger policy agenda aimed atimproving the quality of urban environments. Strengtheningfuture transit and urban form interactions will hinge onrecognizing these systemic relationships, and putting inplace the package of public programs and private initiativesnecessary to accomplish these goals.

TCRP PROJECT H-1Transit and Urban Form

COMMUTER AND LIGHT RAIL TRANSITCORRIDORS: THE LAND USE CONNECTION

Prepared for

Transit Cooperative Research ProgramTransportation Research Board

National Research Council

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.Dr. Robert Cervero

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.Jeffrey Zupan

March, 1996

TCRP H-1: Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection

E-1 Parsons Brinckerhoff

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the research is to provide guidance as to the land use characteristics in acorridor that can support new fixed-guideway transit services cost-effectively. It is postulatedthat land use characteristics in a corridor are a significant factor that drive the demand fortransit service and, therefore, the value and effectiveness of such services. The researchsupports making the case for fixed-guideway transit where it is cost-effective and converselylessening the demand for expensive fixed-guideway services where land use characteristicscannot support them. The research also makes it possible to suggest the nature of thechanges in land use that could support transit.

Currently, many metropolitan areas in the nation are considering new rail transit lines. Takentogether, if all the proposals were implemented, it would add 2,500 miles of new transit linesand increase the extent of such systems by 65 percent. Because most of these proposalsare for light rail or commuter rail services, the focus of this research is on those two modes.Twenty-nine metropolitan areas are seriously entertaining new or expanded light railservices and eighteen are considering commuter rail. Heavy rail is only being proposed asexpansions in cities where that mode already exists.

The proposals for additional rail transit are being advanced despite the long term andcontinued trend away from the core of our metropolitan areas and toward suburbandevelopment that tends to work against transit. The attention to new transit lines ismotivated by a number of factors including:

• Concerns about the negative impact of auto-oriented sprawl;

• Desires to reduce air pollution and energy consumption;

• Interest in rebuilding urban communities;

• Need to provide access and mobility to those without autos; and the

• Desire to save the costs and avoid the impacts of constructing new or widened roads.

APPROACHES TO DEMAND AND COST MODELING

The approach taken in this research is to first define, as a function of land use in a corridor,the likely light rail or commuter rail ridership generated in that corridor. Once these ridershiplevels are determined they are matched against the costs — both operating and capital —necessary to meet the demands for the service. A series of hypothetical but realisticcorridors are constructed, with varying land use patterns and intensities, and then light railand commuter rail lines are overlaid on the corridors to determine the ridership and costsgenerated by the relationships developed in this research.


Parsons Brinckerhoff E-2

The analysis focused solely on radial corridors emanating from the Central BusinessDistricts (CBD), since they are the only corridors that exist today. It is not possible todevelop demand relationship for non-radial corridors in the absence of such data.

On the demand side, a generic model is developed to account for the major factors thatgenerate transit travel in a corridor, including land use, its intensity, and location. Two models,one that estimates daily ridership boarding at a light rail station and the other at a commuterrail station are developed. Data from 19 lines in 11 metropolitan areas with a total of 261stations are used for the light rail model. Data from 47 lines in six metropolitan areas with atotal of 550 stations are used for the commuter rail model. The models bypass the usual four-step travel demand modeling process with a simplified approach that estimates transitdemand directly, incorporating trip generation, mode choice, trip distribution, and tripassignment features. The models consider the number of people living near the station, thecharacteristic of that population such as income and auto ownership, the size and density ofemployment in the CBD which the line serves, the distance and travel time between thestation and the CBD, the availability of access mode services such as feeder bus and parking,and the impact of competing rail services nearby, either on the same line or on parallel ones.

The results are two demand models, one for each mode that account for most, but not all, ofthe postulated factors. Table ES-1 summarizes the results. As expected population densitynear the station matters for both models, but because of collinearity problems, onlyemployment density and not employment size could be included in the commuter rail model.Income shows up in the commuter rail equation, with higher incomes producing more tripsfor this relatively expensive mode. Access mode availability shows a strong effect for bothmodels, with feeder bus availability more important for light rail and parking availability moreimportant for commuter rail. The distance to the CBD also is an important variable with lightrail riders dwindling farther from the core, but for commuter rail the distance function is morecomplicated, first growing with distance and then dropping beyond about 35 miles.Competing service entered the picture in the light rail equation where the competition from anearby station on the same line dampened ridership.

The cost models are developed from data from twelve light rail and eleven commuter railsystems and identify the factors that contribute to operating and capital costs. Operatingcosts are largely a function of labor requirements, which are, in turn, a function of the extentof the system, how intensively it is used and indirectly, and the ridership on the line whichdrives the size of the vehicle fleet that must be maintained. In the relationships, annualvehicle-hours, annual vehicle-miles, the size of the vehicle fleet, and track-miles figureprominently in the operating cost relationships for both modes. Capital costs weredeveloped using contract costs. As expected, the operating costs show a strongerrelationship with the use of the system and the capital costs show a stronger one with theextent of the system. Taken together, the costs are indirectly a function of ridership, andthus, indirectly a function of land use.

It is also helpful to define the range of peak hour riders for which each of these two railmodes would logically operate. The physical characteristics of a line put an upper limit onridership levels. For light rail this translates into daily one-way boardings of 46,000. Forcommuter rail its 80,000. Similarly, below some ridership level the amount of peak hourservice that could be offered is too low to be a reasonably attractive service. For light railthis translates into 2,700 daily one-way boardings; for commuter rail it is 3,600.



Table ES-1. Summary of Factors Influencing Light Rail and Commuter RailRidership

Variable Light Rail Commuter Rail

Employment CBD jobs CBD jobsCBD job density CBD job densityCBD jobs & job density CBD jobs & job density

Population density within 2 miles density within 2 milesdensity within 1/2 mile density within 1/2 mile

Access some feeder bus some feeder busparking available parking available

Distance to CBD log linear1 log linearquadratic quadratic2

Competition nearest station nearest stationnearby line nearby line

Income income income

Terminal? yes yes

CBD TerminalDistance not applicable no

The table lists all factors that were considered in the analysis. Bold type indicates thevariables that are statistically significant in the best-fitting models.

1 For light rail, boardings decrease with distance from the CBD following a downward sloping curve or log-linear function.2 For commuter rail, boardings increase with distance from the CBD up to about 35 miles from the CBDand then decline with increasing distance as modeling by a quadratic function.



An analysis of hypothetical light rail lines shows that there is a significant range of conditionsfor large cities where light rail systems are likely to be inappropriate, particularly where CBDjobs are in excess of 250,000. In these larger CBDs ridership would exceed manageablelevels. At the low end of the light rail ridership spectrum, even CBDs of only 25,000 jobs cansupport the service on ridership grounds.

FINDINGS

With the demand and cost models in hand, a series of hypothetical corridors are constructedto estimate the travel demand for them, and then the costs. For these corridors CBDemployment and density, residential density gradients in the corridors, access modeavailability, and rail line length are varied. For each of these corridors the number of ridersthat would board trains on an average weekday are estimated.

Light Rail Ridership Grows with CBD Size and Density and with Residential Density

For light rail corridors the most striking feature is the exponential growth that occurs as bothCBD employment and employment density increases. Higher ridership levels also occur withhigher residential density gradients with the most substantial increases occurring with longerlines. With an increased length, ridership grows, but on a diminishing per mile basis. Theavailability of feeder buses impacts ridership significantly too. When this service is providedto virtually all of the stations, ridership grows by about 15 percent compared to a situationwhere only about half the stations have feeder bus available. Parking availability has a muchweaker effect on light rail ridership.

Commuter Rail Service Requires Dense CBDs but can Operate in Low Density ResidentialAreas

Commuter rail ridership also grows significantly with CBD size, but does not grow in thesame exponential fashion as light rail. CBD employment density also has a lesser effectthan it does for light rail. Residential density appears to have little effect on commuter railridership because of growing ridership with distance to the CBD (up to about 35 miles) evenas residential density falls, and because of the offsetting effects of income. (Higher incomesassociated with lower densities produce more, not less riders.) The net effect is that forcommuter rail, unlike light rail, residential density in the area of the stations is largelyirrelevant to ridership. Only in the limited situations where higher densities are associatedwith higher incomes within reasonable commuting distance by commuter rail — say 40 miles— will the positive impact of higher residential density on commuter rail be felt. Forcommuter rail the roles of the two access modes are reversed. Parking availability has alarger impact than does feeder buses.

These findings suggest that low density areas can support commuter rail ridership bybringing riders from a large area, especially if parking and some feeder bus service isprovided to offset the small numbers within walking distances to stations. Of course, sitespecific situations and costs may not always make it possible or desirable to provide parkingand bus feeders at all stations.



Light Rail Costs Rise with Ridership and Line Length. Commuter Rail Costs Vary withCBD Size and Line Length.

Turning to cost consideration it is hardly surprising that light rail costs the most when theridership is high and the line is long. Higher CBD employment drives the growth in ridership,which, in turn, requires more vehicles and more workers to operate and maintain them,increasing operating costs. The line length, meanwhile adds to the operating cost too, withmore riders and with more workers needed to maintain the right-of-way. Similarly, the higherridership associated with higher residential densities also drives up costs.

For commuter rail, operating costs are high when the CBD is large and the line is long, butcapital costs are less sensitive to CBD employment and more sensitive to the length of theline.

While there is value in understanding the factors that separately affect both operating andcapital costs — the funding sources are usually different — in this analysis the two arecombined by added the annual amount necessary to replace the capital to the operatingcosts. This is referred to as the total cost.

The analysis of hypothetical commuter rail lines suggests that commuter rail, at least from aridership perspective, requires large CBDs and relatively long lines. It remains to be seenwhat happens when cost criteria are added to the mix.

Light Rail Works Best in Larger Cities with Denser Corridors. Commuter Rail Works Bestwith Dense CBDs.

Measures of cost-efficiency and effectiveness are next calculated for the hypothetical lightrail lines. Cost-efficiency is measured by total cost (annual operating cost plus depreciation)divided by the annual-vehicle miles. Effectiveness is measured by daily passenger-miles perline-mile.

Collectively, for light rail the measures of cost-efficiency and effectiveness each indicate astrong positive relationship with CBD employment size and residential density. A weaker butsignificant relationship also occurs for CBD employment density and for line length. Thissuggests that larger cities with higher density corridors will work best for light rail. But asnoted earlier at very high demand levels for larger CBDs, the ridership attracted to light railmay not be practically handled and a higher capacity heavy rail may be needed. At the lowerend of the land use spectrum, cost-efficiency and effectiveness may suffer, but increases inresidential density might make up for smaller CBDs, and conversely more development inthe CBD could allow for effective and efficient light rail without any significant increase inresidential densities. The importance of both the size and density of CBDs suggest thatcorridors that do not pass through or terminate in a CBD would be harder pressed to becost-effective.

Within the range of feasible commuter rail corridors much more travel will be accommodatedon lines to larger and more dense CBDs. But there is a cost-efficiency trade-off. The largerand more dense CBDs will cost more on a per vehicle-mile basis.



That can be mitigated by making the line longer. But that too involves a trade-off, sincelonger lines will cost more to construct.

The analysis described in this report, summarized in Table ES-2, suggests strongly that lightrail and commuter rail transit performs better when there is a large CBD. However, light railmay not work at all when CBDs get too large since ridership may outstrip the modescarrying capacity. For commuter rail, the larger CBDs produce more effective services, butare slightly less cost-efficient.

The density of the CBD is particularly important for commuter rail, probably because there isusually only one terminal station and lower density CBDs may put some jobs beyond easyreach of the terminal station. Light rail, in contrast, is less affected by the density of the CBDsince there are likely to be multiple stations to serve lower density CBDs.

Residential density itself matters for light rail and commuter rail but, in the latter case,density is confounded by the effect of income, since commuter rail's higher fares attractsmore riders with higher incomes, who also tend to live at lower densities.

The length of the rail line assumes some importance for both light rail and for commuter rail.Longer light rail lines are both slightly more cost-efficient and effective. But the effectsdiminish with length. Commuter rail lines are much more cost-efficient when they are longer,but their effectiveness declines beyond 50 miles. At short distances there often are notenough riders to justify even minimal service on commuter rail.

The availability of access modes can help to achieve higher performance levels, all elsebeing equal; feeder buses more strongly affects light rail and parking more strongly affectscommuter rail.

Light Rail and Commuter Rail Serve Different Markets.

Among the more interesting findings in this research is the distinctly different characteristicsof light rail and commuter rail. It is clear that they serve different markets and different landuses patterns. Indeed, there are more dissimilarities than similarities. This does not implythat in any one metropolitan area they both may not have a niche, only that they havedifferent niches.



Table ES-2. Summary of Findings on Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness for HypotheticalRail Corridors

Factor Cost Efficiency Effectiveness(total cost/vehicle mile) (passenger miles/line miles)

Light Rail

Residential highly positive highly positivedensity gradient

CBD employment numbers moderately negative highly positiveat high CBD job levelsrail may not be feasible

CBD employment slightly positive moderately positivedensity greater impact

for larger CBDs

Feeder bus unclear highly positive

Parking availability unclear (site-specific) moderately positive

Line length slightly positive slightly positive

Commuter Rail

Residential not significant not significantdensity gradient

CBD employment slightly negative, highly positivefor smaller CBDsmay have insufficientriders, especially forshorter line lengths

CBD employment highly positive highly positivedensity

Feeder bus unclear moderately positive

Parking availability unclear (site-specific) highly positive

Line length strongly positive, varies, best atinsufficient riders 50-mile lengthfor shorter lengths



OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

Not accounted for here but worthy of serious exploration is a fuller consideration of costs,including those saved as a result of other modes not used, if the rail line is put in place. Toaccomplish this is it would desirable to assign the rail ridership to the modes from whichriders would be diverted — auto and bus — and estimate the appropriate savings inoperating, capital and full environmental costs. Beyond that, the application of the full costsof both transit and highway modes can balance the burden that rail transit must now bear inproving its value. Also, not accounted for is the sizable ridership that might be foundtraveling to nonresidential clusters at intermediate stops or at the non-CBD terminal. In anumber of places, particularly for light rail lines this has proved substantial. The relationshipsin this report can be applied in such situations.

The need of planners to have specific land use thresholds for support of transit isunderstood. In fact, the earlier works by Pushkarev and his colleagues provided suchthresholds. But these works were also clear to caution the reader that such thresholds wereno substitute for careful site-specific analysis. The thresholds were only a guide to giveplanners a sense of whether there is a reasonable possibility for transit to work in differentsettings. Such a guide is still needed today, and the earlier works can still serve thatpurpose, but now with the added caveat created by the passage of some 15 to 20 years. Inthis report, land use specific thresholds are not given. Rather, further guidance of theexpected effectiveness and efficiency of fixed rail systems as a function of land use isprovided to help put "meat on the bones" to assist in the consideration of so many plansnow being put forth.

Finally, this effort should not be viewed as a substitute for a careful examination of alltransportation alternatives in all types of corridors including those that do not end in theCBD, accounting for site-specific conditions and preferences. Rather, it should be seen asa means to understand the role that land uses in a corridor play in determining costs.Further, it makes clear the need to integrate transit planning with land use planning at theearliest possible stage, a finding that is reinforced in the case studies prepared for anotherreport of this project, Public Policy and Transit Oriented Development: Six InternationalCase Studies.


Report 19

Guidelines for the Location andDesign of Bus Stops

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTETEXAS A&M RESEARCH FOUNDATION

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYCollege Station, TX

Subject Area

Public TransitPlanning and Administration




FOREWORDBy Staff

Transportation Research Board

TCRP Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops, will be ofinterest to individuals and groups with a stake in the location and design of bus stops.This includes those associated with public transportation organizations, public worksdepartments, local departments of transportation, developers, and public and privateorganizations along or near bus routes.

The primary objective of this research was to develop guidelines for locating anddesigning bus stops in various operating environments. These guidelines will assisttransit agencies, local governments, and other public bodies in locating and designingbus stops that consider bus patrons' convenience, safety, and access to sites as well assafe transit operations and traffic flow. The guidelines include information aboutlocating and designing bus stops and checklists of factors that should be considered.

The research began with a literature review and the identification of stakeholders'concerns through mail and telephone surveys and face-to-face interviews. A review of28 transit agency manuals on bus stop design and location provided the basis for anappraisal of current practice. Observations made at more than 270 bus stops duringregional visits to Arizona, Michigan, and California were supplemented with trafficfield studies conducted at 14 bus stops and pedestrian field studies conducted at 10 busstops. Computer simulation of bus stops on suburban highways was also used todevelop the findings.

The guidelines include three sections: the "big picture," street-side design, andcurb-side design.

• The big picture section of the guidelines addresses the need for cooperationand coordination among stakeholders during the design and location of busstops. Such efforts result in mutually satisfying outcomes for diverse interestsand can preclude many problems that often arise.

• The street-side section discusses matters such as curb radii and when toconsider installing the various bus stop configurations (curb-side, nub, busbay, open bus bay, and queue jumper bus bay) and different bus stoplocations (near-side, far-side, and midblock). This section of the guidelinesaddresses possible effects of bus stop location and design on bus operationsand traffic flow.

• The curb-side section addresses community integration; pedestrian access tobus stops; placement of bus stops in the right of way; environmentaltreatments; bus shelter designs; shelter construction materials; and amenities,such as lighting, benches, vending machines, trash receptacles, telephones,bus route and schedule information, and bicycle storage facilities.

The guidelines also include two appendixes that present the results of the street-sideand curb-side studies.

A secondary objective of this research project was to develop or assemble the mostcomprehensive and technically current information on bus stop design. The researchteam prepared a final report that presents the research approach and findings, includingthe results of the literature review, review of transit agency manuals, and surveyfindings. This report, which is not published, is available, on loan, from TCRP.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIONNEED FOR THIS RESEARCH ............................................................................. 1SOURCES OF MATERIAL................................................................................... 2ORGANIZATION OF GUIDELINES................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 THE BIG PICTUREUNIVERSAL CONCERNS ................................................................................... 5LIVABLE COMMUNITIES .................................................................................. 6THE PLAYERS...................................................................................................... 7IDENTIFICATION OF NEED............................................................................... 8LOCATION AND DESIGN FLOWCHART......................................................... 9COORDINATION AND COOPERATION......................................................... 10

Hypothetical Medical Center Example........................................................... 10

CHAPTER 3 STREET-SIDE FACTORSORGANIZATION................................................................................................ 17PLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS................................................................... 18

Stop Spacing ................................................................................................... 18General Considerations................................................................................... 19

PLACEMENT OF BUS STOP............................................................................. 20Far-side, Near-Side, and Midblock Stops....................................................... 20

BUS STOP ZONE DESIGN TYPES ................................................................... 22Types of Bus Stops ......................................................................................... 23Curb-side Bus Stop Zone Dimensions............................................................ 24Bus Bay........................................................................................................... 26Use of Bus Bays ............................................................................................. 27Bus Bay Dimensions ...................................................................................... 28Open Bus Bay................................................................................................. 30Partial Open Bus Bay...................................................................................... 31Queue Jumper Bus Bay .................................................................................. 32Nub ................................................................................................................. 34

VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................ 36Vehicle Types and Dimensions ...................................................................... 36Turning Radium Template.............................................................................. 38Wheelchair Lift............................................................................................... 40Bikes on Buses................................................................................................ 41

ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION DESIGN .................................................. 42Roadway Design............................................................................................. 42Pavement ........................................................................................................ 43Intersections.................................................................................................... 44Driveways....................................................................................................... 46

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19-b.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 3 STREET-SIDE FACTORSROADWAY AND INTERSECTION DESIGN (continued)

Traffic Signals ................................................................................................ 47Sign Locations ................................................................................................ 48Traffic Control and Regulation of Bus Stops ................................................. 49

SAFETY ............................................................................................................... 50STREET-SIDE PLACEMENT CHECKLIST ..................................................... 52

CHAPTER 4 CURB-SIDE FACTORSORGANIZATION................................................................................................ 55PEDESTRIAN ACCESS...................................................................................... 56

Patron Access ................................................................................................. 56Bus Stop to Sidewalk Connections................................................................. 57Coordinating Access with Commercial or Business Development................ 58Coordinating Access with Residential Development ..................................... 59

ADA...................................................................................................................... 60Accessibility Guidelines ................................................................................. 60

WAITING OR ACCESSORY PADS .................................................................. 64Sizing and Positioning.................................................................................... 64Nubs................................................................................................................ 65

SHELTERS........................................................................................................... 66Inclusion and Sizing ....................................................................................... 66Determining the Final Location...................................................................... 67Configurations and Orientations..................................................................... 68Advertising ..................................................................................................... 70Developer Provided ........................................................................................ 72Artistic and Thematic Designs ....................................................................... 73

AMENITIES......................................................................................................... 74Benches........................................................................................................... 74Route or Patron Information........................................................................... 76Vending Machines .......................................................................................... 78Bicycle Storage Facilities ............................................................................... 79Trash Receptacles ........................................................................................... 80Phones............................................................................................................. 82Shopping Cart Storage Area ........................................................................... 83Lighting .......................................................................................................... 84Security........................................................................................................... 85Advantages and Disadvantages ...................................................................... 86Materials ......................................................................................................... 88Materials Advantages and Disadvantages ...................................................... 89

CURB-SIDE PLACEMENT CHECKLIST ......................................................... 90

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19-c.pdf


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARYTERMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. 95

APPENDIX A LITERATURE SEARCH .................................................................................. 99

APPENDIX B REVIEW OF TRANSIT AGENCY'S MANUALS ......................................... 99

APPENDIX C SURVEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 99

APPENDIX D STREET-SIDE STUDIES................................................................................ D-1

APPENDIX E CURB-SIDE STUDIES .....................................................................................E-1

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19-e.pdf

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19-d.pdf


COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research ProgramsSTEPHEN J. ANDRLE, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research ProgramDIANNE S. SCHWAGER, Senior Program OfficerEILEEN P. DELANEY, EditorKAMI CABRAL, Assistant EditorHILARY FREER, Assistant Editor

PROJECT PANEL A-10

DENNIS FITZGERALD, Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NY (Chair)ROBERT GARSIDE, Houston Metro Transit Authority, Houston, TXDENNIS P. HINEBAUGH, University of South Florida, Tampa, FLART LAWSON, Office of Mass Transit, D.C. Government, Washington, D.C.CLEMENTINE W. MORRIS, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KYZUBAIDA MOSHARRAF, Metropolitan Atlanta RTA, Alanta, GAJOHN D. WILKINS, New Jersey Transit, Newark, NJMICHAEL YORK, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Cleveland, OHEDWARD L. THOMAS, FTA Liaison RepresentativeRICHARD CUNARD, TRB Liaison Representative

THE BIG PICTUREUNIVERSAL CONCERNS

Chapter

2

5

As the first point of contact between the passenger and the transit service, the bus stop is a criticalelement in a transit system's overall goal of providing timely, safe, and convenient transportation.

Several universal concerns of both users and providers of transit services include the following:

Transit system performance: Travel time for a bus trip has four components: the time ittakes to walk to the bus stop, the wait time for the bus, the actual in-vehicle travel time, andthe time to walk to the destination. Each is affected by the bus stop location and the frequencyof the bus stops.

Traffic flow: Bus stop location and design affect the flow and movement of other vehicles. Awell-designed bus stop can allow passengers to board and alight without the bus significantlyimpeding or delaying adjacent traffic.

Safety: Safety is the freedom from danger and risk. In the transit environment it includes anindividual's relationship to buses and general traffic, and the bus' relationship to othervehicles. Pedestrian safety issues include the nearness of a bench to the flow of traffic on abusy street or safely crossing the street to reach the bus stop. Bus reentry into the flow oftraffic safely is an example of an operational safety concern. Thus, pedestrians, buspassengers, buses, and private vehicles can all be involved in concerns for safety at or near abus stop.

Security: Security refers to an individual's feeling of well being. Security is affected bylighting at bus stops, bus stop visibility from the street and from nearby land uses, and busstop locations with hiding places. Security involves neighborhood residents, bus patrons, andbus drivers.

These are the functional and performance-related concerns in public transportation. Each must beaddressed to achieve the goal of timely, safe, and convenient public transportation and to satisfy theneeds of the service area. More importantly, to those who plan bus stops, each area of concern isinfluenced by the bus stop location and design decisions.

THE BIG PICTUREChapter

2 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

6

The transit system must be integrated into the everyday life of a community to realize its fullpotential. Consideration should be given to long-term design and system performance, which canenhance the interaction of transit with communities. Only in this way can transit become an acceptedpart of the infrastructure and contribute to the creation of a "livable community."

The goal of the Livable Communities Initiative is to strengthen the link between transitand communities by improving personal mobility, transportation system performance,and the quality of life in communities by

• strengthening the link between transit planning and community planning, including landuse policies and urban design supporting the use of transit, and ultimately providingphysical assets that better meet the community needs;

• stimulating increased participation in the decision-making process by communityorganizations, minority and low-income residents, small and minority businesses, personswith disabilities, and the elderly;

• increasing access to employment, education facilities, and other community destinationsthrough high-quality, community-oriented, and technologically innovative transit servicesand facilities; and

• leveraging resources available through other federal, state, and local programs.

Transit is an integral part of livable communities. Specifically, the efficient placement of bus stopsnear major destinations and within easy access provides a viable transportation alternative to theautomobile by making the entire transit trip shorter and more pleasant.

Thus, the key to successful and productive integration of transit into the fabric of everydaycommunity life includes the location and design of bus stops.

THE BIG PICTURETHE PLAYERS

Chapter

2

7

The key players in bus stop location and design are as follows:

Transit agency - The transit agency is usually the primary provider of transit service.

City government - The authority with jurisdiction over the streets and sidewalks in the transitservice area is usually a city, but county or state agencies are sometimes involved.

Developers - Developers provide new construction and growth in the transit service area.Development may be either residential or commercial. Though both are concerned withaccess, the specific nature of those concerns may vary between residential and commercialdevelopment.

Employers - Employees and retail customers are potential transit riders. Employers benefitwhen their employees and customers can travel to work easily and efficiently.

Neighborhood groups - Neighborhood residents are potential consumers of transit service,and potential supporters of transit, whether they use this service or not.

Key destinations - These are the trip generators (central business districts, schools, shoppingareas, public buildings, medical facilities, etc.) for those who work at these locations, and forthose who use the services provided at these locations.

While the individual priorities of these players may vary, the players have the same interest in thepotential benefit of timely, safe, and convenient transit service. They are the stakeholders in bus stoplocation and design. Although specific methods must vary to suit each particular situation, thechallenge is to use their common interest to productively involve relevant players so that efficienttransit service can result.


2 IDENTIFICATION OF NEED

8

Issues transit agencies consider when determining whether a bus stop is needed include the following:

Transit Agency Policy- Route types (definitions and criteria)- Guidelines for stop installation (boardings and alightings, headways, land use)- Special cases/Exceptions (neighborhood requests, hospitals, procedures)

Equity- Title 6 - Civil Rights Act of 1964 (equity in level of service among different segments of the

community)- Public Relations (perceptions, media attention, community leaders)- Transit dependent areas (demographics, socioeconomics, unique needs)

Accessibility/ADA- Access to the stop (sidewalks, curb cuts, pedestrian crossings)- Access to amenities (shelter dimensions, width of walkways)- Access at the stop (level loading area, lift deployment space)

Various factors relating to transit operations are also important in determining the need for a bus stop.Some of the more important factors are

Trip Generation/Land Use - How many potential bus passengers?

Walking Distance - How far do passengers have to walk?

Boardings and Alightings - How many passengers are getting on and off?

Dwell Time - How long does the bus dwell at the stop?

Travel Time - How long is the trip from the origin to the rider's destination?

Transfer Potential - How many routes serve this stop?

THE BIG PICTURELOCATION AND DESIGN FLOWCHART

Chapter

2

9

Bus stop design and location decisions begin with the request or the recognition that a new ormodified bus stop is needed. The process concludes with the implementation of numerous interrelateddecisions. A flow chart of the decision process is shown below.


2 COORDINATION AND COOPERATION—Hypothetical Medical Center

10

Both transit and city officials agree that advantages exist when coordination occurs amonggovernmental entities and with neighborhood organizations, developers and others. Most majorsuccesses (i.e., design and access, proper placement) involved a good, close working relationshipbetween the transit agency and the city.

Hypothetical Medical Center Example

Locating bus stops at land uses surrounded by large parking lots is a common occurrence. Thissituation is especially evident along suburban arterials developed with current zoning regulations thatencourage the building of extensive parking lots in front of the land use. The large parking lots serveas barriers between the bus stop and the land use. Bus patrons must walk through an uninvitingenvironment (i.e., long stretches of asphalt, between parked cars) to reach the building or bus stop.The size of the parking lot also discourages the transit vehicle from boarding and alighting passengersdirectly adjacent to the building due to the potential for increased points of conflict with generalvehicular traffic and pedestrians in the parking lot. The bus travel time and distance would alsoincrease considerably if route deviations into parking lots occurred at every stop.

An example of the need to coordinate the location of the bus stop with the land use is illustrated bythe hypothetical medical development on the following pages. Because elderly or medically disabledindividuals may use this bus stop more than other bus stops along the route, it is critical that buspatrons are provided with a safe and direct route from the bus stop to the hospital.

The examples show the potential problems and solutions associated with coordinating a bus stop withthis type of development. Both existing and new development scenarios are presented and advantagesand disadvantages of each potential solution are listed below. The large number of solutions for thesame problem highlights the fact that each site can have multiple solutions. Coordination among thedifferent players involved (i.e., transit agency, city, medical center, developer) can enhance thecomfort and safety of bus patrons getting to this stop and can improve transit service to this site.

THE BIG PICTURECOORDINATION & COOPERATION—Hypothetical Medical Center

Chapter

2

11

Hypothetical Medical Center: Providing access without coordination and cooperation.

Positives:! (+) Bus remains on a main thoroughfare, minimizing total travel time along the bus

route.

! (+) Bus stop is more visible to passing vehicles and helps advertise the availability andlocation of public transit.

Negatives:! (-) Patrons must walk through a vast parking lot to reach the medical center.

! (-) Potential exists for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts as patrons walk throughparking lot.

! (-) Parking lot is uninviting and offers little in the way of environmental comfort.

! (-) Security of patrons may be compromised as they walk through parking lot.


2 COORDINATION & COOPERATION—Hypothetical Medical Center

12

Hypothetical Medical Center: Deviating the route.

Positives:! (+) Permits bus route to access land uses more directly.

! (+) Potential for shared use of overhang for bus patrons during inclement weather.

! (+) Reduces walking time and distance from the land use to the bus stop.

! (+) Reduces the potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflicts in the parking lot.

! (+) Patron security may be enhanced through proximity to land use. Indirectsurveillance from the land use may be increased and the number of potential hidingplaces is removed by placing the stop adjacent to the building.

Negatives:! (-) Bus/general vehicle conflicts may increase by having the route deviate into the

parking areas.

! (-) Route travel time and distance are increased.


Chapter

2

13

Hypothetical Medical Center: Installing a pedestrian promenade throughthe parking lot.

Positives:! (+) Bus vehicle remains on a main thoroughfare, minimizing trip time and distance.

! (+) Reduces opportunity for pedestrian/vehicular conflicts in parking lot byconstructing a well-defined pedestrian corridor.

! (+) Patron comfort is enhanced by providing shade trees along a promenade.

! (+) Security of patrons may be enhanced if the promenade is well-lit.

Negatives:! (-) Does not reduce walking distance or time between the land use and the bus stop.

! (-) Patron security may still be compromised if the promenade is not well used, well-lit, or sight-lines are restricted by vegetation.


2 COORDINATION & COOPERATION—Hypothetical Medical Center

14

Hypothetical Medical Center: Orienting building closer to the street and havingparking to the rear and sides of the facility.

Positives:! (+) Transit passenger walking time and distance is reduced since the building is near

the road.

! (+) Patron security is enhanced by having indirect surveillance from the building andpassing vehicular traffic.

! (+) Potential for pedestrian/vehicular conflicts are reduced between the land use andthe bus stop.

! (+) Potential for shared use of the building facilities, such as overhangs and atriums, bybus patrons during inclement weather.

! (+) Bus remains on main route by eliminating the need to deviate into a parking lot.

Negatives:! (-) Challenges traditional land use practices, which may make communities more

reluctant to implement such a strategy.

! (-) Confusion may develop concerning responsibilities for the maintenance and up-keep of a bus stop that is near a major generator of activity.


Chapter

2

15

Hypothetical Medical Center: Expanding facility.

Positives:! (+) Bus vehicle remains on a main thoroughfare.

! (+) Pedestrian access to bus stop is enhanced by juxtaposing building with bus stopand having pedestrian promenades.

! (+) Bus patron comfort is enhanced by the addition of shade trees along the promenadeand the installation of a covered walkway between buildings.

! (+) Reduces bus patron exposure to poor weather.

Negatives:! (-) Pedestrian improvements are costly to construct.

! (-) Requires coordination among many different "players."

! (-) Orientation of new building and parking may challenge traditional land usepractices.


Synthesis of Transit Practice 20

Transit-Focused Development

DOUGLAS R. PORTERChevy Chase, Maryland

TOPIC PANEL

G.B. ARRINGTON, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of OregonELIZABETH A. DEAKIN, University of California, Berkeley

ROBERT T. DUNPHY, The Urban Land instituteMICHAEL GOODALE, Ontario Ministry of Transportation

ALVIN R. MCNEAL, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityJAMES SCOTT, Transportation Research Board

EFFIE S. STALLSMITH, Federal Transit AdministrationDARWIN G. STUART, Chicago Transit Authority

Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council



CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTIONPurpose and Scope of Work, 3Organization, 3

4 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUNDThe Transit/Land-Use Connection, 4Characteristics of Transit-Focused Development, 4Influences of Transit-Focused Development, 5

7 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH REVIEWTransit Impacts on Land Development, 7Land Development Impacts on Transit, 8

11 CHAPTER FOUR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR TRANSIT-FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT

Significance of Government Polices and Actions, 11Components of Policy and Action Frameworks, 12

22 CHAPTER FIVE STATION-AREA DEVELOPMENTEXPERIENCE

The Market as Prime Mover, 22Project Case Studies, 24

28 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS

31 REFERENCES

34 APPENDIX A AGENCY PROFILES

52 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE

user

Text Box


user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

TRANSIT-FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY The wave of rail transit construction in recent decades has renewed interestin developing transit related land-use patterns in American cities and suburbs.This synthesis describes the public policy and action frameworks that haveevolved to support transit-focused development and examines the developmentthat has occurred in station areas in 19 cities and transit agencies.

Transit-focused development can be described as development, generallywithin half a mile of rail transit stations, that provides sufficient densities andmixes of activities and convenient pedestrian linkages to support significanttransit ridership. Focusing development in proximity to transit stations can createinteresting and functional urban centers, diminish environmentally damagingurban sprawl, and play a major role in realizing regional development strategies.

Many older cities sustaining rapid growth from the mid 19th century onwarddeveloped in conjunction with the invention and spread of rail transit.Development patterns of the older parts of cities like Boston, New York,Philadelphia, and Cleveland are closely integrated with transit service. However,development around transit stations since World War II has been markedlysuccessful in certain areas and not so in others.

Transit-focused development generally occurs under three conditions:

• When stations are located in prime regional and community nodes ofactivity attractive to typical market forces;

• When the regional and local real estate market is active; and• When public policies and regulations permit or encourage intensive

development in station areas.

Substantial amounts of transit-focused development have occurred wheretransit routes were designed to serve growing downtown, midtown, and suburbanlocations previously defined as expanding centers of business and residentialactivity (as in Atlanta; Miami; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco; Toronto;Vancouver; and Washington, D.C.). When bolstered by booming real estatemarkets and supportive government actions, transit-focused development hasbeen robust.

When development focuses on areas in which stations are located,governmental action can help promote station-area development. Many regionalagencies, local governments, and transit agencies have provided supportivepolicy frameworks for transit-focused development. In areas attractingdevelopment interest, local governments have adopted public programs andregulations that permit an intensively built mix of activities around stations,promote transit-friendly design, and control provision of parking to generatetransit usage. Cleveland's Tower City Center, a jointdeveloper/transit/government project, created a 360,000 square foot regionalmixed-use center (transit, retail, office, hotel) around restored city landmarks,including its 1920s rail terminal; its success demonstrates the achievementspossible. Other public actions have supported development through infrastructureimprovements, public facility siting, and public/private ventures, including jointdevelopment above or adjoining stations. In station areas where developerinterest is lacking, public actions can underwrite redevelopment costs andimprove accessibility to and the appearance of the station.

2

The change in the character of transit-focused development does not diminish its role in establishing mutuallysupportive land use and transportation patterns. Today’s light-rail systems are likely to be constructed on existingstreets and railroad rights-of-way; they do not attract the same large-scale mixed-use complexes that were frequentlydeveloped in the 1980s around heavy-rail systems. Designed to carry commuting workers to and from centralizedemployment locations, heavy-rail systems were developed for more urban environments. Today’s transit-focuseddevelopment will continue to benefit from positive public policy frameworks and from specific public/private andjoint development actions that support private development. Programs in Chicago and New Jersey illustrate thatredevelopment efforts around stations can renew the life of older neighborhoods and community business centers.

Transit extensions into suburban communities can provide opportunities for station-area development as part ofcommunity business district revitalization efforts, as several examples in this synthesis demonstrate. Small-scaleinfill residential projects can build densities and ridership along light-rail lines, as demonstrated in Portland, Oregon.In some areas, it may be possible to retrofit built-up or partly developed neighborhoods to support transit service.

For these efforts to succeed, continued public support in the form of positive policies, regulatory and financialincentives, and action programs is a necessary correlate to market forces. Much of this activity will be focused onnegotiation procedures, types of financial assistance, and specific design concerns. Successful transit-focuseddevelopment will also require the forging of improved relationships among regional agencies, local governments,and transit agencies, all of which play important roles in supporting such development.

The examples of transit-focused development described in this synthesis illustrate that the key ingredients tosuccess, aside from an active market for development, include (1) station-area development designed with featuresknown to enhance transit patronage; (2) regional planning that integrates metropolitan development with provisionof transit service; (3) station location decisions that take into account potential local and regional market factors; (4)energetic, positive efforts by local governments to permit and promote development around stations; and (5) thewillingness of transit agencies to coordinate station development and operation with development activities in thesurrounding area.

28

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS

The major increase in construction of rail transit lines over thepast three decades has fostered the current interest in transit-focuseddevelopment. However, metropolitan regions have continued todevelop in low-density patterns generally unsupportive of transitservice. In response to these disjunctive trends, public decisionmakers and transit agencies have promoted development aroundtransit stations to provide a setting conducive to greater use of transit.This synthesis, which studied the practices of 19 regions in theUnited States and Canada in the area of transit-focused development,presents the following conclusions.

Transit Patronage Is Best Served by Station-AreaDevelopment of the Following Character

• Designs of stations to relate entrances as directly aspossible to adjoining uses and neighborhoods;

• Densities within a half mile of station areas that approach7 to 12 residential units per acre and 50 or more employees per acre,with lower but still substantial densities as far as one mile fromstations;

• Designs of areas and buildings that promote pedestrianmovements between uses and between stations and adjoining areas,including attractive, convenient, and secure pathways; buildingsfronting on streets and public spaces; compact development ofbuildings; parking designed to support rather that interfere withpedestrian movements; and pleasant landscaped areas;

• Mixes of activities that allow satisfaction of multipleneeds within a walkable distance from stations, includingemployment, convenience retail, business services, and publicfacilities and services: and

• Policies that reduce incentives for parking, includinglowering of parking requirements, increasing parking costs, andprovision of bicycle paths and storage facilities.

The significance of transit-focused development as acomponent in metropolitan development will evolve gradually inmost regions--Decision makers in policy and civic activist circlesacross North America have expressed great interest in promotingdevelopment related to transit. However, when compared to theamount of metropolitan development that has occurred since the1950s, this interest has not yet translated into significantdevelopment in most cities with rail transit systems. The intensivedevelopment that has taken place has occurred mostly in centralbusiness districts and some midtown and inner suburban locations.Transit-focused development at outer suburban stations is relativelyrare. At least six regional transit systems that are relatively new orstill under construction have generated little station-areadevelopment.

Except in older cities and downtown areas, development around railstations often falls short of the density and design thresholds neededfor generating significant transit ridership; transit-focuseddevelopment still remains more a concept than a reality in mostregions.

The primacy of the automobile and the desire of most NorthAmericans to live and work in low-density surroundings stronglydissuades market forces and governmental policies from producingthe densities and forms of development most supportive of transit.The real estate recession that began in the mid 1980s halteddevelopment in many regions, particularly affecting those with newlycompleted or under-construction transit systems.

Although station-area development is at an ebb, the apparentupturn in the real estate market in most regions may well providenew opportunities for development. Changing regional developmentpatterns takes time. The combination of public policy and regulatorysupport for transit-focused development will prove instrumental inturning the tide in favor of transit.

The market continues to be the dominant force in realizingtransit-focused development--The recent recession underlined theconclusions of researchers that station-area development is generallymore a product of market interest in specific locations than aresponse to the availability of transit access. In most areas,automobile travel is still the dominant factor in influencingdevelopment locations and characteristics. Real estate experts projectthat most future development is likely to occur as smallerincremental projects. These projects are able to respond to a moredisciplined market and can be tailored to existing development andenvironmental constraints. Those factors will affect transit-focuseddevelopment as well.

Public officials will wage an uphill fight to attract developmentto station areas without the market forces to back them up. They canovercome a weak market to some extent by siting public facilitiesnear stations and providing permissive regulatory environments andattractive incentives to development They will accomplish far more,however, by locating stations in marketable areas and usingregulatory powers to shape development into transit-friendly nodes,making their strategy one of augmenting rather than substituting formarket forces.

Today's light-rail systems and multi-nodal developmentpatterns are more likely to generate small, community-compatibleprojects than "blockbuster" development complexes--Much of theimpetus for transit-focused development arose from early experiencein Toronto, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., where large,intensive development projects created impressive nodes of station-area activity. The heavy-

29

rail systems in these regions draw large numbers of commuters longdistances to central employment locations in downtown’s or inmature suburbs. That market, plus the peculiar characteristics of thereal estate boom in the 1980s, drove much of the high-profile,architecturally distinctive development that took place aroundstations.

Unlike heavy-rail systems where the relatively limited numberof stations promises major development opportunities at each one,light-rail lines and the multi-nodal development patterns presentdifferent opportunities for transit-focused development. With theirmore numerous stops (and slower trains), light-rail systems will besubject to developers and public officials picking and choosing themost desirable stations for development opportunities. In addition,experience with existing systems shows that many stops will beconstrained by requirements for compatibility with existingdevelopment. Public officials and developers will be challenged toformulate standards and procedures for dealing with these factors.

Experience with transit-focused development conclusivelydemonstrates the desirability of integrating planning for regionaldevelopment with the design of transit systems--The most successfulexamples of transit-focused development have occurred inmetropolitan areas where regional planning significantly influencedand integrated development patterns and the design of new transitsystems. Vancouver and Toronto, both working within strongregional governance systems, have been able to direct regionaldevelopment patterns to reinforce transit service in designated areas.In Washington, D.C., federal agencies planning in the 1960s laid outthe basic system of rail lines to coincide with corridor developmentpatterns, which were subsequently reinforced by the developmentpolicies of several local governments. In Portland, the Metro regionalgovernment and Tri-Met regional transit agency have long worked intandem to mesh transit service with desired patterns of regionaldevelopment.

The setbacks these regions have experienced in generatingtransit-focused development have helped to define the effectivenessof integrated regional action. Toronto lost control over regionaldevelopment taking place outside the municipality at about the sametime that economic problems forced curtailment of transit extensions,occurrences that have substantially reduced the amount of transit-focused development in the region. Washington's early federalplanning gave way to local control over development, which hasproduced a mixed record in transit-focused development.

Unfortunately, regional and metropolitan capabilities to directdevelopment are weak or strained. Even under ISTEA requirementsfor more integrated land use and transportation planning, localgovernments continue to dominate decision making at the regionallevel. Furthermore, as transit systems push out beyond the centralcities, development in station areas will fall under the control ofindividual jurisdictions less ready to accept development of thecharacter required to support transit. For transit-focused developmentto flourish, regional agencies must gain more influence in directingmetropolitan development patterns to support transit service.

Local governments play a significant role in promoting transit-focused development. At a fundamental level, local governments canencourage transit-related development in comprehensive planningpolicies and zoning provisions that allow and even provide incentivesfor development densities, designs, and mix of uses supportive oftransit service. These planning and regulatory actions, whichsometimes must override neighborhood opposition, are an absolutenecessity to attract private investment in station areas. In a moreproactive stance, local governments can work with transit agencies toundertake redevelopment activities, infrastructure improvements, andjoint development projects. As described in the case studies, theefforts of local governments are important keys to successful transit-focused development.

Current experience indicates that extraordinary efforts byregional planning and transit agencies to work with localjurisdictions will be required to stimulate transit-focuseddevelopment under these circumstances.

The public support required to generate significant transit-focused development is still forming in most regions--Thisexamination of research findings and experience underscores the factthat transit-focused development is dependent on supportivegovernment policies and actions to reinforce market forces. ISTEAappears to have stimulated some regional planning agencies andMPOs to more clearly address needs for transit-focuseddevelopment, but the record shows that many regions lack a unifiedpolicy base and specific action program to promote intensivedevelopment around transit stations.

At the local level, the record of transit agencies and localgovernments acting forthrightly to support transit-focuseddevelopment is mixed. In addition, except in instances when stateagencies have been assigned direct responsibility for transit service,state involvement in transit-focused development is not in evidence.

The information in this report demonstrates that a variety ofregional and local policies and actions are available to pursue transit-focused development; more direction by state or federal agenciesmay be necessary to stimulate local actions in its support.

Joint development can offer valuable inducements to transit-focused development--Among the dozens of joint development andinterface projects that have been completed to date, the projectspresented in this synthesis appear to show that a proposed jointdevelopment project has the best chance of success when the transitagency owns property in a desirable location, employs a propertymanager eager to capture and leverage asset values, and can offerfinancial subsidies (through federal and local assistance) tounderwrite extraordinary development costs. The benefits of jointdevelopment--improving access to stations, enhancing systemvisibility, improving property assets--are worth the extra effort fortransit agencies.

Most station-area development could be better designed tocreate a pedestrian-friendly environment that enhances transitridership--From the project experience examined in this synthesis,many individual projects over or adjoining

30

transit stations have been designed to ensure convenient andattractive pedestrian access to stations. Design is often left to chancein the areas that connect a development to the wider station area.Station-area planning by local jurisdictions or transit agencies shouldplace greater emphasis on providing an attractive pedestrian networkthroughout the area surrounding the station, including park-and-ridefacilities.

The combining of physical details like building elements,development design features, and public space can produce aharmonious environment that enhances transit access and ridership;how this is achieved needs to be studied and understood. Localgovernments could play a major role in providing the standards,regulatory framework, and review procedures necessary forimproving those relationships and features.

31

REFERENCES

1. Cervero, R., Ridership Impacts of Transit FocusedDevelopment. University of California, Berkeley (1993).

2. Department of Transportation, A Guide to MetropolitanTransportation Planning Under ISTEA: How the Pieces FitTogether. FHWA-PD-95-031, Washington, D.C. (1995).

3. Warner, S.B., Streetcar Suburbs. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Mass. (1962).

4. Vance, J.W., Geography and Urban Evolution in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, Institute of Governmental Studies,Berkeley (1964).

5. Middleton, W., The Time of the Trolley. Kalmbach Publishing,Milwaukee, Wis. (1967).

6. Fogelson, R., The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles from1850 to 1930. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.(1967).

7. Harrison, D. and J. Kain, "Cumulative Urban Growth andUrban Density Functions." Journal of Urban Economics, 1(1978) pp. 61-98.

8. Boyce, D.E. et al., Impacts of Rapid Transit on SuburbanProperty Values and Land Development: Analysis of thePhiladelphia-Lindenworld High Speed Line. University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia (1972).

9. Webber, M., "The BART Experience: What Have WeLearned?" Public Interest, 12, 3 (1976) pp. 79-108.

10. Lerman, S. et al., The Effect of the Washington Metro on UrbanProperty Values. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, Mass. (1978).

11. Dyett, M. et al., The Impact of BART on Land Use and UrbanDevelopment: Interpretative Summary of the Final Report,Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, BART ImpactProgram, San Francisco (1979).

12. Donnelly, P., Rail Transit Impact Studies: Atlanta, Washington,San Diego. Urban Mass Transportation Administration,Washington, D.C. (1982).

13. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. et al., TCRPReport 16: Transit and Urban Form, Vol. 1, Part I. TransitCooperative Research Program, Transportation ResearchBoard, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1996).

14. Cervero, R., BART @ 20: Land Use and Development Impacts.Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley (July 1995).

15. Barney and Worth, Inc., Evaluation of Banfield Light RailTransit Station Area Planning Program. Tri-Met, Portland,Ore. (1993).

16. Arrington, G.B. Jr., Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Railand Growth Management in Portland. Tri-Met, Portland, Ore.(1995).

17. Hilton, G., "Rail Transit and the Pattern of Cities: TheCalifornia Case." Traffic Quarterly, 67 (1968) pp. 37993.

18. Meyer. J. and J.A. Gomez-Ibanez, Autos, Transit, and Cities.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1981).

19. Smith, W., "Mass Transit for High-Rise, High-Density Living."Journal of Transportation Engineering, 110, 6 (1984) pp. 521-35.

20. Green, R.D. and D.M. James, Rail Transit Station AreaDevelopment: Small Area Modeling in Washington, DC. M.E.Sharpe, Armonk, New York (1993).

21. Cervero, R. and J. Landis, "Suburbanization of Jobs and theJourney to Work: A Submarket Analysis of Commuting in theSan Francisco Bay Area." Journal of Advanced Transportation,23, 3 (1992) pp. 275-297.

22. David, E. et al., Transit-Linked Development: A Case Study ofAtlanta's MARTA System. U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, D.C. (1985).

23. Allen, W.R. et al., The Impact of Rapid Transit on SuburbanResidential Property Values and Land Development: AnAnalysis of the Philadelphia High-Speed Line. Wharton Schoolof Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1986).

24. Voith, R., "Changing Capitalization of CBD-OrientedTransportation Systems: Evidence from Philadelphia, 197088."Journal of Urban Economics, 33 (1993) pp. 361-76.

25. Armstrong, R.J., Jr., "Impacts of Commuter Rail Service asReflected in Single-Family Residential Property Values." Paperpresented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the TransportationResearch Board, Washington D.C. (1994).

26. Al-Mosaind, M.A., K.J. Dueker, and J.G. Strathman, "LightRail Transit Stations and Property Values: A Hedonic PriceApproach." Transportation Research Record 1400,Transportation Research Board,, National Research Council,Washington, D.C. (1993) pp. 90-94.

27. Rybeck, W., Metrorail Impacts on Washington Area LandValues. Subcommittee on the City, Committee on Banking,Finance, and Urban Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives,Washington, D.C. (1981).

28. Landis, J. et al., Rail Transit Investments, Real Estate Values,and Land use Change: A Comparative Analysis of FiveCalifornia Rail Transit Systems. Institute of Urban andRegional Development, University of California at Berkeley(July 1995).

29. Nelson, A.C. and S.J. McCleskey, "Improving the Effects ofElevated Transit Stations on Neighborhoods." TransportationResearch Record 1266, TRB, National Research Council,Washington, D.C. (1992).

30. Gatzlaff, D.H. and M.T. Smith, "The Impact of MiamiMetrorail on the Value of Residencies Near Station Locations."Land Economics, 69, 1 (1993).

31. Damm, D. et al, "Response of Urban Real Estate Values inAnticipation of the Washington Metro." Journal of TransportEconomics and Policy (September 1980) pp. 315-35.

32. Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research, Assessment ofChanges in Property Values in Transit Areas. Rice Center,Houston, Texas (1987).

32

33. Cervero, R., "Rail Transit and Joint Development: Land MarketImpacts in Washington, D.C. and Atlanta." Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 60, 1 (1993) pp. 83-94.

34. Fejarang, R.A, "Impact of Property Values: A Study of the LosAngeles Metro Rail." Paper presented at the 73rd AnnualMeeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,D.C. (1994).

35. Cambridge Systematics. The Effects of Land Use and TravelDemand Strategies on Commuting Behavior. Federal HighwayAdministration, Washington, D.C. (1994).

36. Ayer, L.L. and R.J. Hocking, "Land Development Impacts ofTransit Construction." Journal of Transportation Engineering,112 (1986) pp. 77-87.

37. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. et al., TCRPReport 16: Transit and Urban Form, Vol. 2, Part IV. TransitCooperative Research Program, Transportation ResearchBoard, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1996).

38. Knight, R. and L. Trygg, "Evidence of Land Use Impacts ofRapid Transit Systems." Transportation, 6 (1977) pp. 231-47.

39. Dear, M., "Rapid Transit and Suburban Residential Land Use."Traffic Quarterly, 29, 2 (1975) pp. 223-42.

40. Dingemans, D., "Rapid Transit and Suburban Residential LandUse." Traffic Quarterly, 32, 2 (1978) pp. 289-306.

41. Pucher, J., "Urban Travel Behavior as the Outcome of PublicPolicy." Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 3(1988) pp. 509-20.

42. Bernick M. and R. Cervero, Transit-Based ResidentialDevelopment in the United States: A Review of RecentExperiences, Working Paper 611, Institute of Urban andRegional Development, University of California at Berkeley(March 1994).

43. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. et al., TCRPReport 16: Transit and Urban Form, Vol. 1, Part II. TransitCooperative Research Program, Transportation ResearchBoard, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1996).

44. Wabe, J.S., "Dispersal of Employment and the Journey toWork." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (September1967) pp. 345-61.

45. Daniels, P.W., "Transport Changes Generated by DecentralizedOffices." Regional Studies, 6: (1972) pp. 273-289.

46. O'Connor, K., "The Analysis of Journey to Work Patterns inHuman Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 4, 4 (1980)pp. 477-499.

47. Ley, D., "Work-Residence Relationships for Head OfficeEmployees in an Inflating Housing Market." Urban Studies, 22,1 (1988) pp. 21-38.

48. Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research. Houston's MajorActivity Centers and Worker Travel Behavior. Joint Center forUrban Mobility Research, Houston, Texas (1987).

49. Bell, D., "Office Location: City or Suburb?" Transportation, 18(1991) pp. 239-259.

50. Douglas, B., Comparison of Commuting Trends BetweenDowntown, Suburban Centers, and Suburban Campuses in theWashington Metropolitan Area. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &Douglas, Inc. Washington, D.C. (1992).

51. Cervero, R. and J. Landis, "Suburbanization of Jobs and theJourney to Work: A Submarket Analysis of Commuting in theSan Francisco Bay Area." Journal of Advanced Transportation,23, 3 (1992) pp. 275-297.

52. Cervero, R., Suburban Gridlock. Center for Joint PolicyResearch, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. (1986).

53. Hooper, K.G. and JHK and Associates, Travel Characteristicsat Large-Scale Suburban Activity Centers. NCHRP Report 32,Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,Washington, D.C. (1989).

54. Pill, J., "Emerging Suburban Activity Centers in MetropolitanToronto." Journal of Advanced Transportation, 17, 3 (1983)pp. 301-15.

55. Cervero, R., America's Suburban Activity Centers: The LandUse-Transportation Link. Unwin-Hyman, Boston, Mass.(1989).

56. Cervero, R., "Land Uses and Travel at Suburban ActivityCenters." Transportation Quarterly 45:4 (479) (1991).

57. Pushkarev, S.S. and J.M. Zupan, Public Transportation andLand Use Policy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington(1977).

58. Harvey, G., Relation of Residential Density to VMT PerResident: Oakland. Metropolitan Transportation Commission(1990).

59. Holtzclaw, J., Explaining Urban Density and Transit Impactson Auto Use. Paper presented to the State of California EnergyResources Conservation and Development Commission byNatural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club (April19, 1990).

60. Frank, L.D. and G. Pivo, Relationship Between Land Use andTravel Behavior in the Puget Sound Region. WA-RD 351.1,Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia,Wash. (1994).

61. JHK and Associates, Development-Related Ridership Survey I.Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington,D.C. (1987).

62. Nowlan, D. and G. Stewart, "Downtown Population Growthand Commuting Trips: Recent Experience in Toronto." Journalof the American Planning Association. 65 (1991), pp. 165-182.

63. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. et al., TCRPProject H-I: Influence of Land Use Mix and NeighborhoodDesign on Transit Demand (unpublished). Transit CooperativeResearch Program, Transportation Research Board, NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C. (1996).

64. Ewing, R., P. Haliyur, and G.W. Page, Getting Around ATraditional City, A Suburban PUD and Everything In-Between.Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (January 9-13, 1994).

65. Dunphy, R.T. and B.C. Lim, Transportation ManagementThrough Partnerships. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.(1990).

66. Alverson, K., "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness ofTransportation Demand Management Programs in Downtown

33

Bellevue." Master's degree thesis, University of Washington (1991).

67. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. et al., Mode ofAccess and Catchment Areas of Rail Transit. Project H-1,Transit and Urban Form, Prepared for the Transit CooperativeResearch Program, National Research Council, Washington,D.C. (1996).

68. Friends of Oregon. LUTRAQ: The Pedestrian Environment Model Modifications. Vol. 4A (1993).

69. Friends of Oregon. LUTRAQ: The Pedestrian Environment Model Modifications. Vol. 6 (1995).

70. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission,

Transit and Pedestrian Oriented Neighborhoods. MNCPPC,Silver Spring, Md. (1992).

71. Fehr and Peers Associates, Metropolitan TransportationCommission Bay Area Trip Rate Survey Analysis. MetropolitanTransportation Commission, Oakland, Calif. (1992).

72. Cervero, R., P. Hall, and J. Landis, Transit Joint Developmentin the United States. National Transit Access Center, Berkeley,Calif. (1992).

73. Cervero, R., Transit-Supportive Development in the UnitedStates: Experiences and Prospects. National Transit AccessCenter, Berkeley, Calif. (1993).


Report 39

The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited

ROBERT W. BURCHELLNAVEED A. SHADDAVID LISTOKINHILARY PHILLIPS

Center for Urban Policy ResearchRutgers University

ANTHONY DOWNSThe Brookings Institution

SAMUEL SESKINJUDY S. DAVIS

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc.

TERRY MOOREDAVID HELTON

MICHELLE GALLECONorthwest

Subject Areas

Public Transit




CONTENTS i PREFACE

1 SECTION I Introduction

5 CHAPTER 1 Defining Sprawl

9 CHAPTER 2 Historical Overview

41 SECTION II Literature Synthesis

45 CHAPTER 3 Public/Private Capital and Operating Costs

61 CHAPTER 4 Transportation and Travel Costs

73 CHAPTER 5 Land/Natural Habitat Preservation

83 CHAPTER 6 Quality of Life

103 CHAPTER 7 Social Issues

113 CHAPTER 8 Overall Summary of the Literature

133 SECTION III Annotations of Studies

135 CHAPTER 9 Public/Private Capital and Operating Costs

157 CHAPTER 10 Transportation and Travel Costs

183 CHAPTER 11 Land/Natural Habitat Preservation

195 CHAPTER 12 Quality of Life

205 CHAPTER 13 Social Issues

231 REFERENCES

257 LIST OF ANNOTATED STUDIES BY AUTHOR

265 INDEX

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_39-f.pdf

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_39-e.pdf

http://nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_39-d.pdf



user

Text Box


user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

FOREWORDBy Staff

Transportation ResearchBoard

TCRP Report 39 will be of interest to individuals involved in ongoingdiscussions and debates about urban sprawl and its effects. This report is a literaturereview that represents the culmination of the first phase of TCRP Project H-10, "TheCosts of Sprawl—Revisited." The report was prepared by Rutgers University'sCenter for Urban Policy Research, in conjunction with The Brookings Institution,Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., and ECONorthwest. Urban sprawl isa topic that interests urban planners, economists, environmentalists, sociologists,transportation professionals, policymakers and public officials, academics in manyfields, and the general public.

Regardless of the focus of any particular debate or discussion on urban sprawl,most such discussions attempt to define sprawl and address whether it is "good" or"bad." Consequently, Chapter 1 of Section I of TCRP Report 39 provides a workingdefinition of sprawl and its associated costs. The next chapter provides historicaldiscussion, dating back to the early 1920s when zoning acts were initiallydeveloped, and to the 1950s when the term "sprawl" entered the planning literature.As indicated by the title of this research project, the seminal 1974 report The Costsof Sprawl, prepared by the Real Estate Research Corporation, serves as aspringboard for this research effort.

Section II of the report contains the Literature Synthesis. This sectionsystematically presents the literature on sprawl in chapters that focus on thefollowing major areas of impact:

• Public/private capital and operating costs,• Transportation and travel costs,• Land/natural habitat preservation,• Quality of life, and• Social issues.

Throughout this section, the research team discusses the literature and identifies theextent to which there is agreement and disagreement about the premises andconclusions.

Section III of the report presents annotations of studies, organized in chaptersthat focus on the same five major impact areas as Section II.

While this report will not resolve the debate on the benefits and costs of urbansprawl, it provides an important repository of information for the debaters.

The Costs of Sprawl–Revisited Preface

Rutgers • Brookings • Parsons Brinckerhoff • ECONorthwest i TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM(TCRP) H-10

PREFACE

In 1974, the Real Estate ResearchCorporation published a three-volumestudy entitled The Costs of Sprawl. Thestudy consisted of an Executive Summary,Detailed Costs Analysis (Volume I), andLiterature Review/Bibliography (VolumeII). It encompassed more than onethousand pages. From the time of itspublication until today, it has beenregarded by the social science communityas one of the most significant critiques ofsprawl and among the most influentialstudies ever undertaken. The Costs ofSprawl has been cited in countlessenvironmental and planning reports andjournals; it has been reviewed—bothpositively and negatively—by more thanone hundred journals and magazines; andit has been presented as the seminal studyon growth impacts to numerousCongressional committees and bodies.The Costs of Sprawl was funded jointly bythe U.S. Council on EnvironmentalQuality, the Department of Housing andUrban Development, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency.

The Costs of Sprawl, like no other studybefore, sought to isolate both density andlocation of development as significantcontributors to the costs of development.

The study analyzed six hypothetical newcommunities of 10,000 dwelling unitseach, from high density (19-20 units peracre) to intermediate density (3-4 units peracre); from communities with high levelsof planning and design to those lackingsignificant planning. The study analyzedimpacts on infrastructure, housing,transportation, energy, environmental, andquality of life costs of sprawl (Real EstateResearch Corporation [RERC] 1974).

Although The Costs of Sprawl wasinfluential, it was also flawed. Theanalyses of community types allowed unitsize and number of occupants to vary, andthe savings attributed to differentcommunity types were actually a functionof the differing size (and types) of unitsand numbers of people found there. Theabsence of sprawl was not the reason forthe savings; smaller units and fewerpeople to service were the cause of thesavings. Yet, even though theseshortcomings were uncovered, thedirection of the findings so paralleled pastand current intuitive feelings that thestudy continues to be used twenty-fiveyears later as one of the most cogentarguments against sprawled developmentpatterns.

The Costs of Sprawl–Revisited Preface

Rutgers • Brookings • Parsons Brinckerhoff • ECONorthwest ii TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM(TCRP) H-10

Why such interest in sprawl? AlthoughAmericans like their single-familyresidences, automobiles, and suburbanlifestyles, there is a nagging feeling thatboth the aesthetics of how communitiesdevelop and the efficiency of movementwithin and between them could beimproved. In addition, buried down deepis a recognition that Americans arewasteful in their consumption ofmanmade (infrastructure) and natural(land) resources, and that theirdevelopment choices are selfish in termsof impacts on central cities and thepopulations within them. But first it mustbe shown to the citizenry at large thatthere is a problem, because life is goodand "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Issuburban sprawl different from analternative form of development? Is it lessefficient? Does it cause resources to beneedlessly consumed? Is there analternative? What do those who havestudied this issue say? How substantivelystrong is the evidence they bring to bear?

The study that follows is a detailedexamination of most of the informationthat can be assembled on both sprawl andits costs in an effort to answer the abovequestions. The monograph views the costsof sprawl (with lower-case letters) asinvestigated in a variety of types andforms of about 500 studies. These studiesvary between those that: (1) focusspecifically on sprawl, and those that dealwith suburban or exurban development;(2) are highly quantitative, involvingmodeling or econometric analyses, andthose that are qualitative and purelydescriptive; (3) concern the "harder" orphysical/engineering aspects of sprawl,and those that substantively involve"softer" or quality of life/social issues; (4)are primary analyses and break newground, and those that are secondaryanalyses of the works of others that addvery little; and (5) vilify sprawl and see nopositive effects, and those that champion

the development form as purely andunequivocally "American" with few, ifany, negative impacts.

With regard to the latter, this assemblageof material identifies and providesevidence for both negative and positiveimpacts of sprawl in each of five impactcategories. These are: (1) public andprivate capital and operating costs; (2)transportation and travel costs; (3)land/natural habitat preservation; (4)quality of life; and (5) social issues.

The work contained in this monograph isdivided into three sections and thirteenchapters. Section I contains two chaptersthat provide an introduction to, and anhistorical overview of, sprawl's "growth."Chapter One contains an introduction tothe concept of sprawl, including itsdefining traits; Chapter Two highlightssignificant events in the evolution of thesprawl literature. Section II is a synthesisof the literature of sprawl's impacts: Towhat degree can the impact be recognized,and what is its relation to sprawl? Itdivides sprawl's impacts—more than 40 intotal, two-thirds negative and one-thirdpositive—into the above five impactcategories. The first five chapters of thissection discuss each of the abovecategories of impacts. The sixth chapter inthis section presents in summary forminformation from the previous chaptersboth quantitatively and qualitatively.Section III individually annotatesapproximately one-quarter of the sprawlliterature. Again, this section is brokendown into five chapters according to thefive sprawl impact categories.

The review of the sprawl literature isdesigned to be historical, substantive,comprehensive, and integrative. Presentedin this way, the reader will be drawn intothe argument about sprawl from its originsto the present.

The Costs of Sprawl–Revisited Introduction

Rutgers • Brookings • Parsons Brinckerhoff • ECONorthwest 1 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM(TCRP) H-10

SECTION

INTRODUCTION

The literature review that follows is ananalysis of the writings and studiesconcerning a pattern of land developmentin the United States termed "sprawl."Sprawl is the spread-out, skipped-overdevelopment that characterizes the non-central city metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas of the United States.Sprawl is one- or two-story, single-familyresidential development on lots ranging insize from one-third to one acre (lessacreage on the West Coast), accompaniedby strip commercial centers and industrialparks, also two stories or less in heightand with a similar amount of land takings(Ewing 1997).

Sprawl occurs on a micro basis in almostevery county of the United States(although it occurs in significant amountsin only about one-fifth of the nation's3,200 counties). Sprawl also occurs inWestern and Eastern European, LatinAmerican, and Asian countries inresponse to increased affluence and

growing dependence on the automobile asthe preferred method of intra- and inter-metropolitan travel. Most United Statescounties that contain sprawl have it in itsresidential form—i.e., low-densityresidential development in rural andundeveloped areas. Some counties arecharacterized by nonresidential sprawl,commercial and industrial developmentwith floor-area ratios less than 0.2 locatedin the same types of areas (Burchell andShad 1998).

Sprawl is the spread-out,skipped-over developmentthat characterizes the non-centralcity metropolitan areas andnon-metropolitan areasof the United States. — Ewing 1997

Sprawl occurs, in part, because localgovernments in the United Statesencourage this form of development viazoning and subdivision ordinances which,in turn, reflect the desires of a large shareof their citizenry. This type of

I



development is favored by the generalpublic because it (among other factors):

1) dilutes congestion whileaccommodating unlimited use of theautomobile;

2) distances new development from thefiscal and social problems of oldercore areas;

3) provides a heterogeneous economicmix;

4) fosters neighborhoods in whichhousing will appreciate;

5) fosters neighborhoods in whichschools provide both education andappropriate socialization for youth;and

6) requires lower property taxes to payfor local and school district operatingexpenses than locations closer in.(Burchell 1997a)

Sprawl is so well-accepted by the publicthat the AAA-rated locations for bothresidential and nonresidentialdevelopment are increasingly farther outrather than closer in, and more rather thanless segregated by type of land use(Gordon and Richardson 1997a). Gatedcommunities, farmettes, research parks,

Large regional malls, initially located alongundeveloped highway interchanges, stimulaterapid additional surrounding development.Source: Constance Beaumont, NTHP.

law offices, medical groups,megahardware and home improvementstores, theatrical and comedy clubs, newand used car lots, and restaurants all nowseek peripheral locations in pursuit of

their markets. The move to the far reachesof the metropolitan area began withsingle-family subdivisions; shoppingcenters and garden apartments sprang upnext; then research and industrial parks;then restaurants and entertainmentfacilities; and finally, discounters of everyform.

The unique aspect of all this developmentis that few entities have ever failedbecause their outward locational decisionswere in the wrong direction. Occasionally,a retailer or a residential development hasgone under because an exit on theinterstate or beltway wasn't developed asplanned, but rarely has an economic entityfailed in the United States because it wasdeveloped too far out.

The move to the far reaches of themetropolitan area began withsingle-family subdivisions;shopping centers and gardenapartments sprang up next; thenresearch and industrial parks; thenrestaurants and entertainmentfacilities; and finally, discountersof every form.

The newest and soon-to-be one of themost successful airports in the UnitedStates is 33 miles from the city of Denver;a taxi ride from the airport baggage claimto the downtown Hyatt costs $40. Is thisan anomaly? No. Cincinnati's new airportis so far from the downtown that it is noteven in the same state! Both airports havealready drawn nonresidential developmentand are now drawing residentialdevelopment to their edges. Both are tensof miles from the nearest existingdevelopment of these types. But neithercan justify its location solely on flightpattern interference with residentialenvironments. Instead, the locations werechosen for exactly the same reason otherland use locations are chosen: anabundance of land was available, and it



was both relatively inexpensive and easyto assemble.

If sprawl is so desirable, why should thecitizens of the United States acceptanything else? The answer is that they nolonger can pay for the infrastructurenecessary to develop farther and fartherout in metropolitan areas. In the state ofSouth Carolina, if sprawl continuesunchecked, statewide infrastructure costsfor the period 1995 to 2015 are projectedto be more than $56 billion, or $750 percitizen per year for the next twenty years.In addition to a massive infrastructureconservation program and the adoption ofnumerous technological cost savers,funding infrastructure in this state couldrequire an increase in the gasoline tax of

c2/ /gallon; an increase in the state salestax of 0.5%; an increase in property taxesof 12.5%; the tolling of all interstates at30-mile intervals; impact fees onresidential and nonresidentialdevelopment of $2,000 per unit and per1,000 square feet, respectively; and amandatory 10 percent set-aside forinfrastructure in all state, county,municipal, and school district generalfunds and intergovernmental transferrevenues (Burchell 1997b).

Despite massive road expenditures, I-395 inArlington, Virginia, slows to a gridlock duringrush-hour traffic.Source: Virginia Department of Transportation.

The big-ticket item in all infrastructureprojections is roads. In South Carolina,roads are expected to cost $25 billion,almost half of the total $56 billioninfrastructure budget. In South Carolina,

roads will cost 2.5 times what will bespent on primary, secondary, and highereducation infrastructure; three times whatwill be spent on health infrastructure,including all hospitals, institutions, and allwater-sewer treatment systems; ten timeswhat will be spent on public safety,administration, and justice infrastructure;fifteen times what will be spent onenvironmental protection infrastructure;and twenty-five times what will be spenton all cultural and recreationalinfrastructure.

Dually supporting and underutilizing twosystems of infrastructure—one that isbeing abandoned in and around centralcities and close-in suburbs, and one that isnot yet fully used in rural areas justbeginning to be developed—is causinggovernments to forgo the maintenance ofmuch infrastructure and the provision ofanything other than growth-relatedinfrastructure. The United States, in otherwords, is funding road infrastructure by:

1) not funding all infrastructure;2) not fully funding developmental

infrastructure;3) not repairing or replacing most types

of infrastructure; and4) not taking advantage of the

technological improvements inrehabilitation, repair, and provision ofinfrastructure that could be passed onto taxpayers as savings.

Still, by no means is an alternative to thecurrent pattern of land development thepanacea. If South Carolina were to switchto compact development and managedgrowth measures to curtail spreaddevelopment, the state would be able tosave only about 10 percent of theprojected $56 billion infrastructure costs,or approximately $5.6 billion. This isbecause about 40 percent of publicinfrastructure costs are not growth-related,and only about two-thirds of theremainder is new growth-related. When



development pattern savings are appliedto the appropriate portion of new growth-related infrastructure costs, therefore, thesaving is only 12–15 percent.

On the other hand, increasing the gasolinetax by c2/ /gallon in South Carolina,would have raised only $56 million innew revenues statewide—one one-thousandth of the total requiredinfrastructure costs—and one one-hundredth of the amount that potentiallycould be saved by altering landdevelopment patterns (Burchell 1997b).

In sum, most of the American public isnot unhappy with the current pattern ofdevelopment in metropolitan areas—itsimply can no longer afford it. Thus, theprimary concern about sprawldevelopment, at a time when the averageAmerican is satisfied with its outcome, iscost. And costs need to be measured notjust in terms of capital improvement butalso in terms of resource depletion. Landin the United States is being consumed attriple the rate of household formation;

automobile use is growing twice as fast asthe population; and prime agriculturalland, forests, and fragile landsencompassing natural habitats aredecreasing at comparable reciprocal rates(Landis 1995).

In sum, most of the Americanpublic is not unhappy with thecurrent pattern of development inmetropolitan areas—it simply canno longer afford it.

As a result, the professionaltransportation and city planningcommunities are beginning to look atsprawl to determine whether analternative to this growth pattern can beconceived, and even more importantly,whether it makes sense to pursue analternative pattern of growth. Does anyalternative pose a viable option to currentmethods and forms of metropolitandevelopment? A significant literature hasdeveloped in this area and is overviewedin this section.

The Costs of Sprawl–Revisited Defining Sprawl


CHAPTER

DEFINING SPRAWL

Sprawl, in its broadest sense, has longbeen an American zeitgeist. Alexis deTocqueville, touring the United States inthe early 1800s, observed "no urbangrowth boundaries," but rather marveledat "America ... where everything is inconstant motion ... and where noboundaries were set to the efforts of man."Today's sprawl is the frontier of long ago;it is akin to the post-war suburb—both ofwhich have been extolled as definingAmerican influences.John Delafons, Fellow at theHarvard/MIT Joint Center in 1961, choseas a research topic a comparison of Britishand American land-use controls. Hiswork, Land Use Controls in America,provides an insightful look at the growthof the U.S. "system" of controls from1920 to 1960 by an outsider who camefrom a country with a very formal systemof land-use controls.

Delafons describes the U.S. system ofmaster planning, zoning, and subdivisioncontrol as heavily influenced by a "prairiepsychology." He explains that U.S.development patterns are characterizedby:

a) a supply of land which is viewed asvirtually unlimited;

b) land that is open to all and propertyownership rights that are encouragedand protected by the U.S.Constitution;

c) economic forces that are barelyunderstood and should not betampered with;

d) development professionals whoprepare land for development and donot question whether the land shouldbe developed (i.e., they make sureutilities are in place and feeder roadshave been planned for); and

e) a basic distrust of elected andappointed officials, so that allprocedures are codified anddevelopment that qualifies underthese procedures does so "as ofright," with minimal public review.(Delafons 1962)

U.S. development controls, he claims, are"static" and thus lack the ability to controltempo (timing) and sequence (whichlocation first) of development.Development is free to wander and to takeplace incrementally in jurisdictions in theUnited States because existing land use

1



controls allow this to happen (Delafons1962).

Many agree with Delafons' insight.Although some view contemporarydevelopment patterns as a reflection of theinvisible but sure hand of the market(Gordon and Richardson 1997a), theunbridled movement outward of leapfrog,low-density development is increasinglybeing viewed as an American ill(Richmond 1995). Sprawl has taken onboth a pejorative as well as a descriptiveconnotation, an intermixing that makes abalanced discussion, which attempts todisentangle the costs and benefits ofsprawl, difficult.

U.S. development controls are"static" and thus lack the ability tocontrol tempo (timing) andsequence (which location first) ofdevelopment.

The shift to the suburbs has, of course,been manifest for more than half acentury. In 1940, only 15 percent of theUnited States population resided in thesuburbs (defined as metropolitan areasoutside of central cities). As themillennium approaches, about 60 percentof the population is counted as suburban.Even the most vehement critics of sprawlrecognize that suburban and exurbangrowth patterns have been and willcontinue to be inescapable developmentforms in the United States. The recentpopulation increase of some 20 millionpeople per decade is likely to continue forat least the next quarter-century. As aresult, there will continue to be skipped-over development in rural andundeveloped areas. It would be totallyunrealistic to expect even a moderateshare of growth to occur solely in alreadybuilt-up neighborhoods in cities or inclose-by inner suburbs. Even the suburbsare being bypassed now by developmentseeking locations at the fringe of

metropolitan areas (Nelson and Sanchez1997).

A WORKING DEFINITION OFSPRAWL

Density, or more specifically, low density,is one of the cardinal definingcharacteristics of sprawl. But density hasto be set in context; cross-cultural andplace-oriented differences factor into thedefinition of sprawl. Densities in theUnited States overall are roughly one-tenth what they are in Western Europe; inturn, Western European density is muchlower than that of Japan and only afraction of what is found in such locationsas Hong Kong and Indonesia (Jackson1985). And in all of the above locations,suburban densities are lower than thedensities of central cities. Sprawl is notsimply development at less-than-maximum density; rather, it refers todevelopment that, given a national andregional framework (i.e., suburbs invarious locations of the United States), isat a low relative density, and one that maybe too costly to maintain.

Sprawl refers to a particular type ofsuburban peripheral growth. It refers todevelopment that expands in an unlimitedand noncontiguous (leapfrog) wayoutward from the solidly built-up core ofa metropolitan area. In terms of land-usetype, sprawl includes both residentialand nonresidential development.Residential development containsprimarily single-family housing,including significant numbers of distantunits scattered in outlying areas.Nonresidential development includesshopping centers, strip retail outlets alongarterial roads, industrial and office parks,and free-standing industrial and officebuildings, as well as schools and otherpublic buildings.



These different types of land uses are, forthe most part, spatially segregated fromone another. The components of thisdevelopment are individually located insmall subdivisions in zoning districts.Within each district, usually only one typeof use is permitted—e.g., single-familyresidential, shopping centers, stripcommercial, industrial, or office parks.

Another of sprawl's distinguishing traits isits consumption of exurban agriculturaland other frail lands in abundance; theseare the types of land found at theperiphery of development. The loss ofagricultural acreage takes place insignificant amounts because it often is thecheapest land available for development.Fragile environmental lands areswallowed up because they are part of theotherwise developable tracts. These tractswould not be developed if theenvironment was adequately protected.

Under sprawl conditions, there is almosttotal reliance upon the automobile as ameans of accessing the individual landuses. Seventy years ago, the streetcar wasthe most popular form of transportation tothe suburbs. Nowadays the automobile isthe most efficient means of accessingsprawl's outward extension and skipped-over development. For seven-day-a-weekbusiness and recreational use, includingboth at-peak and off-peak use, nothing canmatch the automobile for cost, efficiency,and versatility—at least in the short term.

Some analysts also include the smalldeveloper and a lack of integrated land-use planning as important aspects ofsuburban sprawl, and point to therelatively small residential subdivisionsand nonresidential site plans created byindividual developers operatingindependently of each other within thezoning districts of the 10,000 localgovernments found throughout the UnitedStates. The legal framework within which

sprawl occurs is fragmented intonumerous relatively small units,separately controlled by discrete localgovernments with unique rules andregulations. These localities have differentfiscal resources per capita (assessedvaluation of residential and nonresidentialproperties). Some are quite wealthy;others have limited ability to pay for localservices. The poorer localities are at asevere disadvantage when competing fordevelopment.

The automobile has replaced the streetcar,stimulating sprawl development.Source: Minnesota Historical Society.

Still, it must be stressed that sprawl isalmost impossible to separate from allconventional development. Even thoughone may be able to comprehend whatappears to be a better method ofdevelopment, it is difficult to translate thatmethod into practice.

Some components of sprawl are not easilymeasured. For example, although it ispossible to track residential single-familyand nonresidential commercial and retaildevelopment taking place at low densitiesin the United States, accessed byautomobiles in rural and undevelopedareas, this is the point at which almost alltracking stops. Measures of leapfrogdevelopment or development that isspatially segregated are virtuallyimpossible. Measures of how muchdevelopment is being delivered by small



developers in local jurisdictions isachievable but generally unproductive.

Finally, although a measure of grossresidential density (number of dwellingunits divided by area of jurisdiction) isavailable from several sources and canprovide some indication of land taken perdeveloped unit, the gross measure oftenmasks the actual land takings ofindividual new developments.

On the other hand, there is little evidenceto suggest that conventional developmentin a given location is anything other thanleapfrog, segregated, and land-consuming.Thus, sprawl development can becharacterized with some certainty as low-density residential and nonresidentialintrusions into rural and undevelopedareas, and with less certainty as leapfrog,segregated, and land-consuming in itstypical form.

A WORKING DEFINITION OF THECOSTS OF SPRAWL

The "costs" of sprawl have been talkedabout for decades, often without a fullunderstanding of what these costs are andto what level they should be assigned. Inthe original RERC (1974) Costs of Sprawlstudy, costs were calculated in sixdifferent substantive areas and assigned tothree different levels: infrastructure andtransportation costs were assigned to thecommunity, housing and quality-of-lifecosts to the individual, and energy andenvironmental costs to both thecommunity and to society as a whole(RERC 1974). This is a characteristic ofthe sprawl literature which is onlybeginning to be addressed at the end of atwenty-five-year observation period. Thework of Sam Seskin of ParsonsBrinckerhoff and Terry Moore ofECONorthwest on full-cost accounting oftransportation costs is breaking new

ground in viewing the totality of costs ofpublic policy decisions (ParsonsBrinckerhoff and ECONorthwest 1996).Their work is the exception. Most cost-accounting efforts assign sprawl costs toeither the easiest or the most commonlevel of measurement.

For definitional purposes, the "costs" ofsprawl are the resources expendedrelative to a type, density, and/or locationof development. These "costs" involvephysical, monetary, temporal, andsocial/psychological resources. Theyinvolve costs to the individual, to thecommunity, and to society. Most of thecosts specified to date are physical ormonetary, although occasionally socialcosts (e.g., the loss of upward mobility) orpsychological costs (e.g., the loss of senseof community) are documented.

There is little evidence to suggestthat conventional development in agiven location is anything otherthan leapfrog, segregated, andland-consuming.

The "benefits" of sprawl are mirrorimages of costs. They involve resourcegains due to type of development patternand include categories of gain similar tothose of losses stated above. This mightinvolve a temporal gain in suburb-to-suburb travel time because mostresidences and jobs are now bothsuburban, or monetary gains due toreduced housing costs also from buildingfarther out, or social gains such as theability to achieve homeownership, againdue to location in more distant places.

Costs and benefits are reported in the formthat the primary research provides. Inalmost all cases, these are costs at thecommunity level as opposed to costs at theindividual or societal levels, or benefits atany level.

1 SUMMARY

Part I Overview and Context5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

What is “Livability”?, 5Concerns About Community Livability, 5A Place-Making Approach to Livability, 6Transit and Place-Making, 7

Opportunities for Communities, 7Opportunities for Transit, 8

Federal Support for Transit and Livable Communities, 8About This Report, 9

10 CHAPTER 2 The Impact of Transportation on LivabilityA Role for Transportation as a Player in Building Communities, 10Transportation Strategies Impacting Livability, 11

Transit Strategies, 11Design-Oriented Strategies, 11Service-Oriented Strategies, 11“Traffic-Calming” Strategies, 12Transportation and Land-Use Strategies, 13

Conclusions, 14

Part II Roles of Transit in Creating Livable Communities17 CHAPTER 3 Introduction and Approach to Case Studies

Case Study Selection Criteria, 17Research Approach, 18

Background Research, 18Focus Groups, 18Case Study Interviews, 19Detailed User Case Study Evaluations, 19Telephone Surveys of Selected Model Projects, 19Preparation of Case Studies, 20

Livability Issues Presented, 20

21 CHAPTER 4 Creating Places for Community LifeIntroduction, 21

Overview of Community Strategies, 21Role of Transit, 22

Examples, 23Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s MAX Station Anchors Saturday Market, 23Boston, MA: Health Clinic Becomes Visible and Provides Accessible

Community Service at Roxbury Crossing T-Station, 23Tucson, AZ: Downtown Saturday Night—Transit Center Becomes

Focal Point for Downtown Revitalization Event, 24Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus Transit Center—Using

Public Art to Inspire Community Ownership of a Transit Facility, 25Case Studies, 25

Case Study 4-1: Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square Transit Key in Creating the City’s “Living Room,” 25

Case Study 4-2: Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creating a Sense of Place at a Commuter Rail Station, 29

Case Study 4-3: Shady Grove Metro Station, MD: KidStop Child Care Center Helps Make a Community “Family-Friendly,” 33

35 CHAPTER 5 Transit as a Catalyst for Downtown and NeighborhoodRenewal

Introduction, 35Overview of Community Strategies, 35Role of Transit, 36

Example, 37Transit Malls: Successes and Failures, 37

Case Studies, 38Case Study 5-1: Somerville, MA: Davis Square Transit Station—

Subway Extension Spurs Neighborhood Rejuvenation, 39

CONTENTS

user

Text Box


user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

user

Text Box

**

Case Study 5-2: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative: Rebuilding Disinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets” from the Bus Stop Up, 42

Case Study 5-3: Chicago, IL: The Green Line—Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment in Distressed Inner City Neighborhoods, 45

51 CHAPTER 6 Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship and EconomicDevelopment

Introduction, 51Overview of Community Strategies, 51Role of Transit, 52

Examples, 53Washington, DC: Union Station—Local Business Opportunities at

Revitalized Intermodal Station, 53New York, NY: Columbus Circle Market—Subway Station Plaza as

Place for Economic Opportunity, 54Chicago, IL: A Public/Private Joint Venture to Create Local Retail

Opportunities at Transit Stations, 54Chicago, IL: Suburban Job-Link Connects Jobs and People, 56

Case Studies, 56Case Study 6-1: Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing—Transit and

Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting for Urban Marketplace, 56Case Study 6-2: Chicago, IL: Union Station—Local Businesses Thrive

in Redeveloped Historic Station, 59Case Study 6-3: St. Louis, MO: The Wellston MetroLink/Cornerstone

Partnership—Light Rail Service Linking Mobility withOpportunity, 62

65 CHAPTER 7 Improving Safety and AmenityIntroduction, 65


Examples, 67Baltimore, MD: Howard Street Mall—Koban Police Booth Improves

Community and Transit Security, 67New York, NY: Improved Subway Stations Enhance Perception of

Security, 68California Bus Transfer Centers: A Study of Safety, Security, and

Community Context, 69Case Studies, 70

Case Study 7-1: Tucson, AZ: Tohono Tadai Transit Center—New Environment Transforms Transit Experience in Area of

Suburban Sprawl, 71Case Study 7-2: New York, NY: Station Manager Program—A Place-

Oriented Approach to Subway Station Management, 73Case Study 7-3: New York, NY: Port Authority Bus Terminal—

A Comprehensive Approach Yields Security Benefits for Terminal and Times Square Neighborhood, 77

Case Study 7-4: Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s Rider Advocate Program—On-Board Services Improve Transit and Community Security, 81

84 CHAPTER 8 Making Communities Accessible and ConvenientIntroduction, 84Overview of Community Strategies and Role of Transit, 84Examples, 86

Santa Monica, CA: The Big Blue Bus—Convenient and Accessible City Bus Service Builds Livability and Transit Ridership, 86

Kids Kab: Reducing the Need for Parent Chauffeuring, 86New Jersey Transit WHEELS Program: Experimenting with Flexible

Service to Serve Local Mobility Needs, 87Case Studies, 88

Case Study 8-1: Aspen, CO: City Shuttles—Community Develops Plan to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Increase Mobility, 88

Case Study 8-2: Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts Shuttle—Community-Scaled Transit Links Neighborhood Destinations, 91

Case Study 8-3: Meridian, MS: Union Station—Train Station Becomes Community Transportation Hub, 94

97 CHAPTER 9 Shaping Community GrowthIntroduction, 97


Example, 99Arlington County’s Rosslyn-Ballston Metrorail Corridor: Using Transit

to Shape Growth and Create Community, 99Case Studies, 100

Case Study 9-1: Boulder, CO: GO Boulder—New Transit Services Key to Meeting Local Environmental Goals, 100

Case Study 9-2: Seattle,WA: Local Initiative for Neighborhood Circulation (LINC)—Neighborhood Transit System Channeling

Community Growth, 104Case Study 9-3: Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus Transfer Station

and the Downtown Trolley—Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal, 107

Part III A Guide for Implementation113 CHAPTER 10 The Community-Based Process for Creating Livable

CommunitiesOpportunities for Community Involvement in Current Transit Planning

Processes, 113Public Participation: Going Beyond “Requirements,” 114

Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making, 115Strategy No. 2: Step-By-Step Implementation, 115Strategy No. 3: Developing Effective Transit/Community

Partnerships, 117Case Studies, 118

Case Study 10-1: Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo Trolley—Volunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line, 118

Case Study 10-2: Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit Village—Using Transit to Leverage Funding for Community Development, 121

Case Study 10-3: New Jersey Transit Station Renewal Program—Creating Partnerships with Community, 127

Case Study 10-4: Boston, MA: South Station—Transit-Private Developer Partnership Transforms Historic Station, 131

Case Study 10-5: Wilmington, DE: Wilmington Infrastructure Studies—Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced

Livability and Economic Development, 134Case Study 10-6: Denver, CO: The 16th Street Transitway—Twenty

Years of Public-Private Partnership and Reinvestment, 136

140 CHAPTER 11 Planning, Design, and Management Strategies for LivablePlaces

About Place Performance Evaluation, 140Developing the Vision, 141Livable Places: A Conceptual Model, 142Strategies for Creating Livable Places, 143

Uses and Activities, 143Comfort and Image, 143Access and Linkages, 144Sociability, 145

Putting It All Together, 148

149 CHAPTER 12 Conclusions and Next Steps

151 APPENDIX A Bibliography and Related Literature

157 APPENDIX B A Review of Livability Research

SUMMARY This report describes transit’s increasingly important role in improving thelivability of communities.

Concerns about livability affect every community: inner cities, suburbs,small towns, and rural areas. The report explores a “place-making” approachwhere a local community, working in partnership with a transit agency,plans and implements neighborhood-scale projects and programs that aremutually supportive of community livability and transit ridership goals.

Part I of this report describes the place-making approach to livability andexplores the relationships between transportation and livability that are keysto understanding the case studies.

In Chapter 2, the role of transportation in building communities throughtransit programs, strategies to “calm” traffic in residential and commercialneighborhoods, and a new understanding of the relationship between trans-portation and land use is explored.

Part II of the report—Chapters 3 through 9—presents examples and casestudies of transit facilities and services that achieve community livabilitygoals; the role played by communities, transit agencies, municipal agenciesand authorities, and the federal government is also discussed. Each chapter inPart II has two sections: (1) an introduction with highlighted example projectsand (2) case studies. Chapter 3 describes the selection criteria for case studiesand the research approach used in collecting the data and background infor-mation for the case studies.

Livability topics covered in Chapters 4 through 9 include transit’s role inthe following:

• Creating places for community life,• Acting as a catalyst for the renewal and revitalization of neighborhoods

and entire downtowns,• Creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and local economic devel-

opment,• Making communities safer and more comfortable,

THE ROLE OF TRANSIT IN CREATING LIVABLE

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES

• Making connections between neighborhoods, downtowns, and com-munity destinations more accessible and convenient, and

• Shaping community growth.

Part III of the report is a guide to implementation. Chapter 10 outlines aseries of model partnerships created between communities and transit agen-cies, a specific process for developing such partnerships, and steps to followfor involving communities in the planning, design, and management of transitprojects and other livability initiatives. Chapter 11 provides a checklist ofdesign, management, and transit strategies and how they can be used toaddress specific local problems as part of a place-making process.

Chapter 12 concludes by offering the next steps in this evolving partner-ship between transit and communities.

A bibliography and related literature and the results of research conductedto define livability, as well as actual livability studies, are found in Appen-dixes A and B, respectively.

2

A revolution is going on today in American commu-nities. Citizens are discovering that by working inpartnership with government, they can reshape theirneighborhoods and downtowns into vital, attractive,comfortable—and more livable—places.

A potent tool has emerged in this movement, onethat is an important but still largely unrecognized cat-alyst for improving community life. That tool is trans-portation. Transportation facilities and networks arenatural focal points for the kinds of activities that helprestore a positive sense of community. This expandedrole for transportation started with transit and hasnow spread to traffic planning.

This report is based on a year-long research effort toidentify examples of best practices and provide concreteevidence of how transit can be a contributing force inachieving greater livability in all communities. Fol-lowing a brief overview of the role played by trans-portation in community life, case studies arepresented in which transit serves to foster livability.To assist in applying this process to other communi-ties, a process for planning and implementingimprovements, whereby transit agencies work in part-nership with communities, is also presented.

WHAT IS “LIVABILITY”?

Bookstores today are filled with guides to “the bestplaces to live in America.” Using census statistics,weather data, broad community surveys, and a rangeof other methods, researchers found when people say“livability,” they mean clean air and water, safestreets, positive race relations, affordable homes,quality public schools, greenery and open space,uncongested roads, and low taxes, among otherthings. (A detailed discussion of methods used todefine livability and their findings appears inAppendix B.) Indeed, the avid interest in livabilitytoday seems to have emerged because people are

increasingly recognizing the unlivable aspects of theplaces where they live, work, and spend recreationaltime.

People express their strongest concerns about thelivability of their communities when referring toproblems encountered on a daily basis. For example,they talk about difficulty crossing streets and feelingthreatened by automobile traffic. They grieve aboutthe replacement of distinctive local structures withsterile and characterless architecture. They complainabout a lack of parks to sit or stroll in and the dearthof scenic vistas. They lament the disappearance ofcenters where people once came together and tookpart in activities such as shopping, mailing letters,eating out, going to the theater, catching a train orbus, visiting the library, or meeting friends. Theseconcerns reflect an underlying sense of isolation anderosion of community life. The result is more andmore people are feeling a loss of community as wellas a lack of control over and connection to theirchanging local environment.

Even though “livability” is difficult to define, peopleare able to apply it as a concept to their own commu-nity and way of life. Striving for livability puts theunlivable aspects of communities into clear focus andhelps channel local energies into projects and programsthat address daily livability problems. The case studiespresented in this report clearly show how this processworks: how communities set priorities for improvinglivability and establish programs that address commu-nity needs, problems, and visions for betterment.

CONCERNS ABOUTCOMMUNITY LIVABILITY

People everywhere are concerned about the livabil-ity of their communities. Specifics cited include safetyand fear of crime, easy access to jobs, availability andaffordability of housing, diminishing environmental

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

5

quality, educational quality, race relations, runawaygrowth, and traffic congestion.

Concern about livability is not confined to neighbor-hoods in large inner cities: it exists in suburbs, smalltowns, and even in the smallest villages. This concernis expressed by residents of cities losing population aswell as by city dwellers in booming regions. It comesup in poor and wealthy communities alike, and amongpeople of varied ages and backgrounds. It is clear thatAmericans are facing a national livability dilemma.

Transportation strongly impacts community livabil-ity concerns. People are beginning to realize that

designing cities and suburbs to accommodate theautomobile has often diminished, not improved,quality of life. Intrusive roads have created barriersthat disrupt communities and erode their physicaland social cohesion. At the same time, public trans-portation options are often viewed as inadequatealternatives. As a result, many communities end upwith transportation networks that simply passthrough them, without responding to communityneeds, relating to their surroundings, or reflectinglocal character.

A PLACE-MAKING APPROACHTO LIVABILITY

. . . Places have an impact on our sense of self, our sense ofsafety, the kind of work we get done, the ways we interactwith other people, even our ability to function as citizens ina democracy. In short the places where we spend time affectthe people we are and can become. [1]

—Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place

The two concepts of community and place are inseparable.‘Place’ is the vessel within which the ‘spirit’ of communityis stored; ‘Community’ is the catalyst that imbues a loca-tion with a ‘sense’ of place. The two are not divisible. Youcannot have community without place; and a place withoutcommunity is a location. A group of people with a sharedconcern but not a shared place is an interest group, not acommunity. [2]

—Donovan Rypkema

Urbanists focus on the micro before wrestling with themacro and understand that, in reality, the macro onlychanges for the better in micro steps . . . Innovation andingenuity are the prevailing characteristics. Perseverancein the face of naysayers and determination in the face ofobstacles are prerequisites. Step by step, essential and nat-ural growth follows and spreads until larger areas prosperover time. [3]

—Roberta Gratz, The Living City

This report explores a place-making approach tolivability, an approach that involves assessing theconcerns and needs of a local community and thenusing this assessment to make improvements to themany places in that community. Because this ap-proach focuses on “places,” it can apply to any com-munity, regardless of differences in socioeconomicstatus, demographic makeup, or even geographiclocation.

Discussions about livability are often too broad orattempt to cover too large a geographic area to lead tothe development of practical strategies that addresslocal community concerns. Making communities livablethrough a place-making approach connects the con-cept of livability to the specific places used by peoplein communities. It begins at a scale that a communityfinds both manageable and relevant: a small area

6

Figure 1-1. Peachtree Street in suburban Atlanta, GA, lacksa sense of place. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 1-2. Livable places bring people together. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

around where people live or work, one that is probablyno larger than a downtown or a neighborhood. When“closer to home” problems are defined, residents of anarea are not only better able to identify priorities, butthey are also more likely to become involved in aplace’s improvement.

Communities are usually composed of many smallareas, and improvement to specific places can cumula-tively produce success on a broader scale. This place-making approach thus provides a way for municipalagencies and transit operators, which operate on ametropolitan or regional level, to take steps towardaddressing a community’s livability goals.

While place-making does include design strategies,design is only a part of it. Many places have beenimproved through better provision of municipal ser-vices without any physical changes at all. Improvingthe maintenance and management of a public space,upgrading security, or establishing a special-events orvending program are all strategies for improving aplace without making design changes. The develop-ment of special management districts to oversee suchactivities, funded by special assessments agreed to byproperty owners, has flourished across the country inboth large cities and small towns as more local orga-nizations have begun to take responsibility for ensur-ing that their commercial districts are safe, attractive,clean, active, and comfortable.

TRANSIT AND PLACE-MAKING

There is a kind of mass transit cities used to be very richin . . . the kind that is part of the fabric of the city itself,doesn’t just go overhead and take people whoosh, but linksall kinds of places within the city and that’s the kind of

mass transit we need to reconstitute . . . In a really healthycity, it’s something that knits the whole thing together . . .

—Jane Jacobs [4]

When you have this train running down the middle of thestreet every 3 1⁄ 2 min, you don’t believe there’s going to bemurder and robbery and violence.

—Alec Keefer, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario [5]

A focus on place-making can bring the ridershipgoals of the transit agency and the livability goals ofthe community together. For transit operators, thismeans that each decision made to provide service,locate a station or stop and maintain that stationshould be made in the context of how transit can con-tribute positively to the experience of that place.Mobility options must be developed and improved inresponse to expressed as well as observed communityneeds. These transportation options also must beregarded as a set of alternatives (cars, buses, trains,vans, bicycles, walking) that fit into a community’sbroader vision as well as its self-image. When there isno existing community-based vision, transit plannersshould be prepared to insist that one be developed orlearn to facilitate its development. Regardless of whoguides this process, transit decisions should be madeso as to complement and help realize a community’svision and plans.

Opportunities for Communities

Case studies in this report demonstrate how transitservices and facilities are already contributing to thelivability of metropolitan communities throughoutthe United States—although clearly much more can

7

Figure 1-3. A revitalized street corner in downtown NewHaven, CT, features amenities and activities of a successful“place.” (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 1-4. Harvard Square, in Cambridge, MA, is not only a world renowned “place” but also a transit hub serv-ing both residents and tourists. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

be done in many more communities. This report pre-sents projects that involve communities, not just in apro forma “approval” process, but in assuming afundamental role transforming transit stations, andeven bus stops, into community focal points. Transitagencies are establishing facilities like day care andsenior centers as part of transit facilities. Transit isbeing integrated into downtowns in a visible andpositive manner, through the creation of centralizedtransfer centers and specially designed streets thathelp stimulate economic development. New, flexible,neighborhood van systems now exist that cater tothe needs of residents who find existing public tran-sit to be inaccessible or inconvenient. Many of thenew light rail systems around the country havebrought new riders aboard—sometimes many morethan expected—and have successfully changed tran-sit’s image and use in automobile dominant citieslike St. Louis and Denver.

Although the process for developing projects ofthis type is not new, recognition of the relationshipbetween transit and the needs of communities and ofthe importance of a process that facilitates transit’sresponse to these needs is new. Community groupsare rediscovering the value of services offered bytrains, buses, and community shuttles and areembarking on projects that expand their use. Moreimportantly, they are recognizing how transit ser-vices and facilities can enhance the livability of adowntown or a neighborhood. Although many pro-jects are small or still in the planning stages, researchfor this report revealed that this community-oriented approach to addressing livability throughtransit is gaining momentum and that passion anddedication for community projects is waiting to betapped.

However, obstacles still exist. The public, commu-nity organizations, and local governments do notalways understand the connection between transitand livability. Most quality-of-life studies show thattransportation in general is not currently a primarydetermining factor in influencing where peoplechoose to live. Transit agencies themselves, therefore,need to recognize that the services they provide andfacilities they create can have an enormous, positiveimpact on the livability of the neighborhood placesthey serve.

Opportunities for Transit

Historically, transit has been the central organizingfeature around which communities were built andfunctioned. Today, transit needs a new direction if itis to continue to function effectively in metropolitanareas designed around the car. This challenge is par-

ticularly critical in areas outside the northeasternUnited States and other major transit cities. However,the long-term decline in transit ridership, even incities like New York, shows that this problem is notgeographically limited.

To ensure its own future, transit must become morevisible and connected to people’s lives and the lives ofthe communities it serves. A transformation isrequired, much like the recent turn-around in the field of urban policing. Cities like New York, St. Louis,and Seattle have experienced extraordinary decreasesin crime, largely because of the return of the “cop onthe beat” and “community policing,” where police,citizens, and communities work together to reducecrime and improve the quality of life. This has com-pletely changed the way police departments provideservices and the way communities and police interactwith one another.

While contributing toward the livability of a com-munity is an admirable goal in itself, it is important toemphasize that there are other important benefits ofthis approach for transit agencies. Community build-ing is an important and visible public business: theresult can be tangible projects to which local officialscan point with pride, thereby helping to build futuresupport for transit. Working directly with communi-ties, especially people who only occasionally use tran-sit, helps to build a broader constituency of supportfor transit as well. Making transit better serve theneeds of a community can translate not only into newtransit riders, but a force that can lobby for funding toexpand and improve service.

Finally, direct economic benefits also can accrue toa transit agency when it develops its facilities andproperties to incorporate uses and activities—rangingfrom cafes to post offices—that generate income whileproviding a much needed service to transit patrons.Although such benefits are routinely considered partof major rail investments, they are often overlookedby the nation’s bus operators who handle most oftoday’s transit riders.

A community-based approach for transit works. Ina day when many focus on the limits and constraintsof transit, there are reasons to be optimistic about thefuture role of transit in communities. The key isenabling transit agencies to recognize and value theirrelevance in people’s lives and to encourage morecommunities to work in partnership with transitagencies.

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR TRANSITAND LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Many of the activities described in this reportwould not have been possible without the support of

8

the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) LivableCommunities Initiative and the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. By fos-tering new approaches to applying transportation inthe service of community life, both are bringing aboutpositive changes.

The FTA’s Livable Communities Initiative hasprovided major funding and support for projectsaround the country, including many presented in thisreport. The FTA’s Livable Communities Initiative has15 capital demonstration projects underway. It also issponsoring a series of transportation-based townmeetings and developing an innovative travelingexhibition promoting a holistic approach to transit,including a video for display at conferences, work-shops and symposia across the United States. TheFTA also is writing a guidebook for livable communi-ties and is developing guidelines for public/privatepartnerships around its facilities. Growing Smart is aplanning document being produced by the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development in partner-ship with FTA, Environmental Protection Agency,and American Planning Association. It will signifi-cantly update examples of model United States devel-opment and planning guidelines to combat sprawland promote transit-oriented development. In 1996,the initiative focused on evaluating projects under-way in order to document the benefits of community-sensitive transit.

ISTEA, which has fundamentally redirected trans-portation policy, was also instrumental in many of theprojects presented here. ISTEA has expanded localdiscretion for transportation investment decisions,including the diverting of highway funds into transit,pedestrian, and bicycle projects. ISTEA has also man-dated greater public participation in decision making,encouraging investment in projects that link transitfacilities to their communities and in projects thatenhance livability through transit.

This report arrives at the moment when the U.S.Department of Transportation has committed itself toa new initiative, the National Partnership for Trans-portation and Livable Communities. This partnershipbrings together public and private nonprofit entitiesas well as foundations to advance the place of trans-portation (transit and highway) as a tool for creatinglivable communities. This will be achieved througheducation and outreach, research and information

exchange, and technical assistance and demonstrationprojects.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report is divided into three parts.Part I, the Overview, describes the place-making

approach to livability and explores the relationshipsbetween transportation and livability that are keys tounderstanding the case studies presented in the report.

Part II presents the specific ways in which transitcan support the livability of communities, usingextensive case studies as examples.

Part III is a practical guide to implementation,including a planning process and helpful suggestionson implementing the process. Case studies of partner-ships involving transit agencies with city govern-ments, community organizations and privatedevelopers are also presented to show the numerousways programs and projects can be implemented.

The Appendixes A and B, respectively, contain a bib-liography and related literature and the results of thein-depth research conducted on livability and qualityof life and what these mean to communities.

A video was produced in conjunction with thisreport that presents an overview of the case studiescovered and the planning, decision making, and place-making approaches outlined in the report. This video isintended to be used to assist communities in imple-menting projects and programs similar to thosedescribed in this report. (See Foreword for availability.)

ENDNOTES

1. Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place, Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork, New York (1990) p.1.

2. Donovan Rypkema, “Place, Community, and EconomicDevelopment,” a talk delivered at the AnnualConference of the National Trust for HistoricPreservation in St. Louis (September 29, 1993) as quotedin Roberta Gratz, The Living City, p.iii.

3. Roberta Gratz, The Living City: How America’s Cities AreBeing Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way, ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994) pp.ii–iii.

4. Gratz, p.xxiii.5. Alfred Holden, “Why Toronto Works,” Planning

Magazine, American Planning Association, Chicago,Illinois (March 1995) p.6.

9

Transportation plays a role in almost everyone’sdaily life. It is intrinsically woven into the fabric ofour existence, encompassing not only how we getfrom place to place, but also how we conduct ourdaily routines and the choices we make about whatwe do. Getting to work, school, or appointments, run-ning errands, shopping, socializing and recreationalpursuits are among the many things we do that areaffected by the kinds of transportation available (or notavailable) to us. Location of transportation facilities,design of streets and sidewalks and even placement ofon-street parking can make all the difference in howwe experience these day to day endeavors.

Because transportation is so tied to our daily lives,it provides a perfect opportunity to address the liv-ability concerns of our communities. For example,when train stations, bus stops or transfer facilities arecentrally situated, easy to reach, with convenient con-nections, they make it simple to get where we’regoing, without having to drive. Ample sidewalks andsafe-to-cross streets also simplify our lives by givingus opportunities to walk, bicycle or stroll to our desti-nations while being able to look around, mingle withothers and take part in all kinds of other activities,like shopping, eating, and entertainment.

Transportation can also enhance the quality of thegeneral living environment when it responds to people’s needs. When transit facilities provide pleas-ant waiting places with comfortable seating, con-genial food service, clean restrooms, helpful signageand other amenities in lively, attractive surroundings,they become important places in their communitiesthat people can enjoy. Similarly, streets designed tothe scale of people, with colorful plantings, pleasingstreet furniture and positive activities, offer environ-

ments where people can feel safe, relaxed and free tosavor life around them.

What’s more, when transportation is people-oriented,it can help build communities and restore communitylife. It can provide the accessibility and exposure thathelps develop business. It can allow for entrepreneurialopportunities by molding public spaces and trans-portation facilities that can nurture start-up enter-prises. It can spur the identity and cohesiveness thatbring communities together and help them grow andbecome safer and more attractive.

A ROLE FOR TRANSPORTATION AS A PLAYER IN BUILDING COMMUNITIES

For transportation to play an effective role inimproving the livability of communities, it mustbecome more of an integral part of community lifeand have a more direct link to the idea of “place.”This view of transportation, as a catalyst for strength-ening community life in the United States, also callsfor a new way of measuring the success of transporta-tion facilities.

In the case of streets and roads, the idea of trans-portation as a catalyst for community livability goesbeyond the movement of vehicles as the sole bell-wether of success to encompass the comfort andsafety of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as theaccommodation of alternative mobility options tomeet the varying needs of different individuals withinthe community. It also includes requirements for anattractive, inviting, more human-scale street environ-ment that reflects, preserves and enhances a commu-nity’s unique personality, provides opportunities forpeople to come together and is supportive of local

CHAPTER 2

The Impact of Transportation on Livability

Transportation is at the core of everything.—Roberta Gratz, The Living City [1]

10

11

businesses. This translates into commercial and resi-dential areas where traffic moves more slowly instreets that are not excessively wide and are betterconnected to adjacent uses, in terms of scale, func-tion and design. It also sets the stage for wellmarked pedestrian crosswalks, light cycles that aretimed for walkers, not just drivers, convenient on-street parking, public amenities, attractive landscap-ing and management practices that increase theflexibility of existing roadway space to accommodatedifferent kinds of uses at different times.

In the case of transit facilities, such as those pre-sented in this report, this idea extends beyond systemoperations. It includes serving passengers’ preferencesand needs and focusing on how transit facilities canact as catalysts for regenerating surrounding commu-nities as well as on how they can serve as centers ofcommunity life. This translates into transit facilitiesthat are conveniently located in downtowns ratherthan on the outskirts of town. It also has resulted instations and transfer centers that look inviting, areeasily accessible on foot, provide amenities, andencourage local businesses to supply on-premiseservices, or to take part in local activities. It has createdfacilities like bus and trolley stops that are combinedwith other community uses that spur improvements tosurrounding areas and create centers of activity. In thecase of transit services, it has meant a new flexibility inproviding alternative transit options such as smallscale van and circulator systems.

TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIESIMPACTING LIVABILITY

Three overall transportation strategies that impactlivability are explored below. They are transit strategies,traffic-calming strategies, and transportation and land-use strategies. Of these, only case studies of transitstrategies are presented in this report. [2]

Transit Strategies

Transit strategies that help create livable communi-ties are presented in this report, with Part II devotedto presenting many specific examples and case stud-ies of how transit makes an impact. Strategies fall intotwo basic categories: design-oriented strategies andservice-oriented strategies. Although they can be dis-cussed separately, they very often work together.

Design-Oriented Strategies

Bus, light rail, heavy rail, and subway stops havethe potential to be centers of community life. Design-

oriented strategies enhance the comfort and conve-nience of transit users, while having a positive impacton the surrounding area. With proper design andincentives, transit stops can attract a variety of activi-ties and uses (like retail, community services, andspecial events) which increase the sense of securityand help create an incubator for small retailers andentrepreneurs from the local community.

Acting as a stimulus for commercial redevelopmentand neighborhood renewal, the stop or station can con-tribute toward the livability of an entire neighborhoodarea. Examples of these design-oriented strategies areredesign of bus and trolley stops to support adjacentretail uses; introduction of improved public spacesaround a commuter rail station; and creation of trans-portation centers and intermodal terminals that serveas catalysts for neighborhood-scale development.

Service-Oriented Strategies

Service-oriented strategies are essentially transit ser-vices that increase mobility within a neighborhoodarea. For the purposes of this study, service-orientedstrategies that only target special user groups (like spe-cial vans to transport the elderly or people with disabil-ities to specific social services) were excluded. Thefocus is on services that are currently available to thegeneral public (including these special user groups) toimprove livability through better mobility and access.

Service-oriented strategies include transit shuttlesand connectors, which link residential neighbor-hoods with commuter rail and rapid transit stations;circulators and trolleys, which enable shoppers, visitors and office workers to move more freely aboutthe central business district; and neighborhood-based

Figure 2-1. This bus shelter in Portland, OR, is one of manyamenities provided on this successful downtown transitmall. (Credit: Tri-Met, Portland)

transportation services. Introduction of these localtransportation services helps support the goals ofneighborhood livability by facilitating internal circu-lation to local destinations not well served by regulartransit services. These new services carry residents toand from homes to jobs, shops, and local services:they transport the elderly to medical appointments,take children of working parents to day care centersand schools, serve the disabled, and transport resi-dents to community-based social services. In metro-politan areas served by rail transit or regional busservices, small vans shuttle neighborhood residentsto the nearest stations, providing convenient accessto economic, educational, cultural, and recreationalopportunities offered by the region.

While all these service-oriented strategies have thepotential to add to community convenience and liv-ability, it is important to remember that their effec-tiveness depends on their management. This includes,for example, efficient scheduling along with provid-ing scheduling information, coordination of connec-tions, user orientation, vehicle maintenance, andsensitive and responsive personnel.

“Traffic-Calming” Strategies

The impact of both design- and service-orientedkinds of transit improvements will be reduced, how-ever, unless streets or roads also support communitycharacter and needs. Streets and roads can knit com-munities together and enhance the character andidentity of the places where they pass. They canbecome symbols of pride for a community, have aconsiderable economic impact on local businesses and

help create strong and viable community centers. Inother words, improving the livability of streets is notjust a pedestrian, vehicle traffic, bicycle, or transitissue—all must be considered together. It is importantto balance all of the functions on a street so that theyserve users. This balanced approach to the use ofstreets has come to be known as “traffic calming.”

Traffic calming is a term that emerged in Europe todescribe the practice of slowing down cars, but notnecessarily banning them, as they move through com-mercial areas and residential neighborhoods. The ben-efit for pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists is thatcars now drive at speeds that are safer and more com-patible with walking and bicycling. Buses no longerhave to vie for limited space and access. There is, infact, a kind of equilibrium achieved among all of theuses of a street so no one mode can dominate at the

12

Figure 2-2. This historic style “trolley” bus links a downtownterminal in Corpus Christi, TX, with local attractions. Sincethe “trolley” was initiated, ridership has increased signifi-cantly. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 2-3 and 2-4. European experience with traffic calming is very extensive; this town is one of hundreds inDenmark that have redesigned their residential and com-mercial streets to make them more pedestrian-friendly(Figure 2-3). In the United States, cities like San Bernardino,CA, have begun traffic calming efforts of their own, in thisexample by introducing diagonal parking (Figure 2-4).(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

expense of another. The objective of traffic calmingtherefore necessitates a change in the role and goals oftraffic engineers who traditionally have been asked tomove traffic as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Traffic calming also requires an understanding ofnew techniques: one based on traffic-managementstrategies, the other on physical design. Traffic-management strategies include issuance of center-citypasses, truck restrictions, signalization systems, trans-portation system management, parking management,traffic-reduction ordinances, car and fuel taxation,and speed limits. Traffic-calming design techniquescreate physical impediments to speeding, such asroad narrowed lanes for vehicles, undulations in theroadway, crosswalks raised to sidewalk level, and ele-ments that create pinch points or gateways to a street.Because a wide and straight street with perfect visibil-ity is most conducive to speeding, these and othersimilar approaches are intended to alter driver per-ception and encourage slower speeds.

In general, well-conceived traffic-calming programsaddress the broad issues of a street and go well beyondvehicle concerns to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, andtransit activities. For example, a sidewalk can bewidened at an intersection to create a larger space fora bus stop shelter and seating. This wider sidewalkalso reduces the width of the street for pedestrianswho are crossing. The bus no longer has to pull in andout of traffic to pick up or drop off passengers,thereby speeding service, although momentarilydelaying traffic. If the crosswalk is raised to sidewalklevel, drivers are further encouraged to drive at lowerspeeds. Perhaps an adjacent business is created (or anewsstand located) to serve transit riders. All of thesestrategies work together, therefore, to create a balanceof uses at that corner.

Transportation and Land-Use Strategies

Where and how Americans live has changedalmost completely in the past 50 years. Fifty yearsago, there was little suburban sprawl. People lived insmall towns near cities, or they lived in cities ortowns themselves. Compact, dense development wascreated by, and continued to be supported by, anextensive network of public transportation. Fiftyyears ago, even Los Angeles had its “Red Car” trolleysystem, which is now gone. During the first half ofthe twentieth century, people marveled at the growthof cities. This has paled by comparison with thegrowth during the second half of the century.

This massive transformation of cities, suburbs, andtowns has been paralleled by unprecedented eco-nomic prosperity and growth. Yet it is clear that this

transformation has not been without its costs. The“American Dream” of spread-out, free-rangingdevelopment has come home to roost in places thatlack human scale or identity, and with serious damage,if not downright destruction, to the central locales andneighborhoods that have long given people their com-munal focus and sense of belonging.

Much of this sprawling development has beenrelated to land-use policies that favor low density andcomplete separation of residential and commercialuses. In the long run, if lasting and effective trans-portation improvements that act as a permanent, pos-itive force for livability are to be achieved, then theymust take place within the context of an overall land-use policy designed to further the preservation and

13

Figure 2-5 and 2-6. Aerial views of Harvard Square inCambridge, MA (Figure 2-5) and suburban Los Angeles,CA (Figure 2-6) illustrate dramatically the differencebetween traditional and contemporary land-use patternsand transportation networks. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

revitalization of dense, lively town centers as well asthe creation of new nodes near public transportation.Such a policy can nurture initiatives that clusteractivities around transit hubs, provide opportunitiesfor short commutes and easy walking, promote alter-native transit use and avoid the wastes of energy,land, and the environment that sprawl creates.

There is considerable existing literature on thesubject of how macroscale land-use patterns andurban form encourage or discourage transit-orientedcommunities. This literature describes the principles(such as “The Ahwahnee Principles”) of changingthe way American suburbs are structured to encour-age more dense, transit-oriented communities. The“neotraditional” communities movement is animportant lead in this effort. (See, for example, LandUse Strategies for More Livable Communities, by TheLocal Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.)The TCRP also has completed major research towardthis effort (TCRP Report 16, “Transit and UrbanForm”).

Fortunately, there are encouraging signs today of abroadening perspective, a growing awareness of therole of transit in the development process and in thecreation of livable communities. A growing recogni-tion of the importance of land use broadens the dis-cussion further. Transportation planners increasinglyview transportation and land use as complementarycomponents of the larger metropolitan system. Nowthe question transportation planners often ask is: howcan communities be designed to provide a better

environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and transitriders, and thus reduce automobile dependence?They also may ask: how can more opportunities andactivities be provided within closer distances, andthus reduce total travel? Transportation planners areimplicitly asking: how can accessibility be enhancedby changing land-use patterns rather than only byexpanding the transportation system?

CONCLUSIONS

The case studies that follow in Part II show how thetransit strategies discussed above are being used incommunities throughout the United States and howthey are succeeding at fostering greater livability. Eachof these strategies has its own specific applications inresponse to specific local issues and opportunities, andall of them are not necessarily applicable in all cases.In many cases, however, a combination of strategiesare at work, which demonstrate the intrinsic relation-ship between transportation and community life.

ENDNOTES

1. Roberta Gratz, The Living City, p.xviii.2. In 1997, additional research will be completed to docu-

ment specific case studies of management strategies,which enhance streets so that they too contribute to com-munity livability goals and support more efficient, effec-tive, and convenient transit operations.

14

appendix d tcrp research excerpts · this report uses extensive case studies to illustrate how...

Documents