National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5. Firm-level Spatial Analysis
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"6. Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22765.
×
Page 108

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

48 6. CASE STUDIES The purpose of the case study phase was to seek on-the-ground evidence of agglomeration economies caused by recent rail investments, and to explore factors not easily quantified in the other empirical work. A number of additional factors may influence whether rail investments increase firm productivity, such as governance and institutional issues, land use policies, and agency ownership of station area property. We selected the transit systems and regions listed in Table 12 on our “short list” of possible case studies. All of these had opened a new fixed-guideway transit line or extended an existing line between 1990 and 1999, although the selection criteria were relaxed to include BRT lines opened in the 2000s. Systems we initially considered to be strong candidates are marked with an asterisk in the “S” column. These included BART (San Francisco Bay Area), Santa Clara Valley Transit, Sacramento Light Rail, San Diego Trolley, and recent rail systems in Dallas, Chicago, Portland, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, Baltimore, Miami, and Cleveland. TABLE 12 Initial list of metropolitan-level case study candidates S City Agency Mode Year original line opened Years new service/ extensions opened * Atlanta, GA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Heavy Rail 1979 1992, 1996 * Baltimore, MD Maryland Transit Administration Heavy Rail 1983 1995 * Baltimore, MD Maryland Transit Administration Light Rail 1992 1992, 1997 * Chicago, IL Chicago Transit Authority Heavy Rail 1892 1993 * Chicago, IL Metra Northeast Illinois Commuter Railroad Corporation Commuter Rail 1856 1996 * Cleveland, OH Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Light Rail 1920 1996 * Dallas, TX Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority Light Rail 1996 1996, 1997 * Dallas, TX Trinity Railway Express Commuter Rail 1996 1996 Denver, CO Regional Transportation District Light Rail 1994 1994 Galveston, TX Island Transit Light Rail 1988 1995 * Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Heavy Rail 1993 1993, 1996, 1999 * Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Light Rail 1990 1990, 1991, 1995

49 * Los Angeles, CA Southern California Regional Rail Authority Commuter Rail 1992 1992 Memphis, TN Memphis Area Transit Authority Light Rail 1993 1993, 1997 * Miami, FL Miami-Dade Transit Agency Busway 1997 1997 New Haven, CT Connecticut Department of Transportation Commuter Rail 1990 1990 New Orleans, LA New Orleans Regional Transit Authority Light Rail 1835 1990, 1999 Pittsburgh, PA Port Authority of Allegheny County Light Rail 1964 1993 * Portland, OR Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Light Rail 1986 1997, 1998 * Sacramento, CA Sacramento Regional Transit District Light Rail 1987 1998 Saint Louis, MO Bi-State Development Agency Light Rail 1993 1993, 1994 * Salt Lake City, UT Utah Transit Authority Light Rail 1999 1999 San Diego, CA North San Diego County Transit District Commuter Rail 1995 1995 * San Diego, CA San Diego Trolley Light Rail 1981 1990, 1995, 1996, 1997 San Francisco, CA Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Commuter Rail 1992 1992 * San Francisco, CA San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Heavy Rail 1972 1995, 1996, 1997 San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Railway Light Rail 1892 1991, 1998 * San Jose, CA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Light Rail 1987 1990, 1991, 1999 Stockton, CA Altamont Commuter Express Commuter Rail 1998 1998 Washington, DC Virginia Railway Express Commuter Rail 1992 1992 * Washington, DC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Heavy Rail 1976 1990, 1991, 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999

50 Our three case studies were selected from this list according to review panel input, economic and travel data availability, interest by regional agencies, and diversity in geographic location, metropolitan area size, transit system maturity, and mode. We also took into account the employment, transportation, land use, and geographical characteristics of the metropolitan areas. The first was Los Angeles Metro’s Orange Line, a 14-mile fixed-guideway bus rapid transit (BRT) line that began serving passengers in 2005, joining a fairly extensive existing light and heavy rail system. The second was the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail system, which started operating in 1996 with 11 miles of right-of-way and has since expanded to about 48 miles, with further expansions planned. The third was Salt Lake City’s TRAX light rail system, installed in phases in 1999, 2001 and 2003, with just 19 miles of right-of-way but relatively high ridership. Los Angeles and Dallas are large metropolitan regions with global and regional industries; they are centers for commerce that attract capital from around the world. It is in such large metropolitan areas that transit-induced agglomeration economies may be most likely to occur. Salt Lake City is a much smaller regional and state economic center, in a relatively isolated region of the United States Mountain West, with a successful light rail system (installed in preparation for the Winter Olympics in 2002) that has had higher ridership than forecasted. The similarities and differences among these three help illustrate how transit-related industry agglomeration effects might not be accounted for in our quantitative modeling methodology. These factors may include the influences of long-range regional transportation planning, land use regulations, public-private partnerships for economic development, and other political associations among transportation, business, and metropolitan governance entities. The policy environment within which economic development is allowed to take place will affect the type and timing of activities that are developed. This is important because if planning policies constrain or encourage particular types of development in the vicinity of new transit lines, this will confound any underlying market forces that may lead firms to take advantage of agglomeration economies from densification. While we would expect to observe patterns of densification in the type of activities we believe enjoy such agglomeration economies, planning policies may have designated land and floor space to other purposes, such as retail and housing. We therefore investigate in some degree of detail the planning and land use policies that have guided development along the transit lines in each case study. As shown in Table 13 below, Los Angeles has the highest mode share for transit, at about 7 percent; Dallas has the most solo drivers, with about 79 percent, significantly more than Salt Lake City or Los Angeles. The share of trips by public transportation plus solo car is nearly equal in all three cases: 81% for Dallas, 80% for Salt Lake City, and 79% for Los Angeles. For the purpose of this table, the Dallas area is defined as Dallas and Collin Counties, the Salt Lake City area is defined as Salt Lake County, and the Los Angeles area is defined as Los Angeles County.

51 TABLE 13 Mode shares by region (1) (Please see Appendix A for numbered references in all case studies). Mode Dallas Salt Lake City Los Angeles Drove alone 78.5% 75.9% 72.1% Carpooled 11.9% 12.4% 11.5% Public transportation 2.7% 3.6% 7.2% Walked 1.4% 2.1% 2.9% Other means 1.5% 1.7% 2.1% Worked at home 4.0% 4.3% 4.3% Summary of findings The evidence we collected for the case studies showed a variety of influences over the development process in the three selected cities. Common among them was the general lack of strong evidence of transit-influenced densification or firm location. This was attributed at least in part to a lack of physical infrastructure to support the intensity of use that would be desired by the market in certain locations. The cities included in the case studies each had unique characteristics and circumstances, but their development paths more or less coincide with an emergent theme: lack of investment in infrastructure other than transit (water and sewer especially) are more significant barriers toward densification than other policy limitations we initially believed to be relevant, such as zoning, land use regulation, and form-based codes. Region-specific results are summarized in the sections that follow. Los Angeles Our Los Angeles case focuses on the Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit service in the San Fernando Valley. It is the only recently-opened fixed-guideway bus rapid transit system in the US, and early signs indicate that it may be bringing agglomeration benefits to the San Fernando Valley. Our evidence suggests transit-driven densification has occurred along the Orange Line corridor, although it is difficult to attribute to the presence of the BRT line in particular. Visual examination of time-series employment data, from 2002 to 2008, shows increases in resident worker population densities along most of the corridor, and pockets of increased employment density, most notably near the western terminus of the Orange Line. These data also indicate a significant increase in the presence of jobs in industries prone to agglomeration (such as finance and insurance, professional services, health care, and public administration) near the corridor over the time period. Zoning regulations along the LA Metro Orange Line corridor do not differ substantially from those outside the corridor. However, elsewhere in the LA Metro system, zoning plans specific to individual transit-oriented development projects could encourage increases in population and employment densities near transit stations. The Red and Blue lines, which both converge on downtown Los Angeles, have existed longer than the Orange Line and have been the focus of more intense development programs over the past decade. Economic development initiatives have targeted the downtown area around transit stations as an entertainment hub for the region, with the recent development of the Staples

52 Center and LA Live. Planning tools for transit-oriented development such as form-based zoning and changes to parking standards have been seen as helpful in certain segments of the real estate market, but not others (particularly not in the high-end market) according to professionals we have talked with. Salt Lake City Salt Lake City provides a contrasting study area to Los Angeles. It is, for one, a much smaller metropolitan region. Our case study results do not show much, if any, empirical evidence that recent transit investment has resulted in significant agglomeration. Prior to the implementation of the two TRAX light rail lines, UTA operated frequent, successful bus service along both current light rail corridors, limiting the potential improvements in accessibility of businesses to labor markets that could result from the transition from bus to light rail service. There is also limited empirical evidence of transit-driven densification along the corridor. Examination of time-series employment data from 2002 to 2008 shows increases in employment and resident worker population densities near the corridor, however, it is not clear if this is a direct result of transit investment, or part of a broader trend. At the same time, these data do not indicate an increased presence of jobs near the corridor in industries that tend to agglomerate. Additionally, since the opening of the TRAX lines, there have been no corresponding changes in zoning laws to encourage or allow increased densification along the corridor. With the exception of a few small areas zoned specifically for transit-oriented development, zoning regulations along the TRAX light rail corridors do not differ substantially from those outside the corridors. This lack of special zoning would appear to reflect a minimal focus on potential economic development impacts during the planning of the initial TRAX lines. In our discussions with professional planners and developers in the Salt Lake City region, we came across a slightly different story with respect to transit-driven densification. Though many acknowledged the slow pace of change with respect to transit development, some participants pointed out what they felt were significant changes in the downtown area, where the two TRAX lines converge and the FrontRunner rail terminates. Densification of employment has been occurring in this area in recent years, some of which may be attributable to the presence of high-quality transit service. The University of Utah was also cited as having specifically targeted policies, such as limited parking supply, while increasing employment density on campus. Intermountain Medical Center selected a site for regional expansion in part because of its high accessibility both via transit and highways. They have a stated policy of acquiring property for future expansion with transit access as one of many criteria in mind. Other station areas have been slower to develop, and we see no evidence of this in industries that we expect to agglomerate. According to our discussions, one reason may be the historical nature of the rail areas as former industrial corridors, which has limited the redevelopment potential for a variety of reasons including land cleanup, assembly, and lack of infrastructure. Dallas Finally, Dallas-Fort Worth is a case that is situated somewhere between the two previous cases. Dallas is an emerging world city and center for finance, energy, and insurance. Like Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, Dallas has only recently begun to develop fixed-guideway transit systems. The continually increasing congestion in the Dallas area make it a prime candidate to experience agglomeration benefits from transit investment, due to large gains in accessibility to

53 labor markets that could result from improved transit service. However, empirical evidence that this has resulted from the 1990s investment in the DART light rail system is limited. Examination of time-series employment data from 2002 to 2008 shows increases in employment and resident worker population densities near the northern portion of each corridor, and decreases in employment and resident worker population densities in the downtown area. Again, it is not clear if these increases on the northern portions of the corridors are direct results of transit investment, or part of a broader trend. The data also do not indicate an increased presence of jobs in industries prone to agglomeration near the corridor over the period. Our analysis of firm-level data (discussed previously) supports this conclusion. Additionally, since the 1996 opening of the DART light rail system, there do not appear to have been any corresponding changes in zoning laws to encourage or allow increased densification along the corridor. As seen in Salt Lake City, zoning regulations along the DART light rail corridors do not differ substantially from those outside the corridors. The Dallas case, as described by our discussions with planners and professional developers, is somewhat similar to the Salt Lake City case in a number of ways. Developers have been slow to embrace transit-oriented development principles in the outlying areas, though there are notable exceptions, such as Mockingbird Station and downtown Plano. Parking and infrastructure constraints have led to a slower pace of agglomeration in the downtown area than many participants would like to see. Unlike the Salt Lake City case, however, Dallas does not have typical planning regulatory barriers to address in the downtown area. Instead they rely heavily on flexible negotiations for each project in a process of creating Planned Development Districts. These overlay districts allow developers to set the parameters of development. Yet, like the Salt Lake City case, downtown Dallas is constrained by parking and infrastructure limitations. Addressing these is much trickier than typical planning regulations such as zoning, or those on building height or bulk. Methods and data sources Our methodological approach toward the case studies is to supplement and enrich the quantitative work, which uses nationwide data on metropolitan areas and firm-level data from two metropolitan regions to study how transit is correlated with population and employment densification and hence with average wages and firm revenues. There are potentially significant limitations of a quantitative modeling approach to estimating the additional economic impacts of transit investments—particularly when geographic and political factors heavily influence transit and economic development decisions on local, state, regional and national levels. It is expressly these types of limitations we are trying to capture in our three case studies. Several of the questions we identified and addressed in the sections that follow are: • Which industries seem to be locating in, or moving away from, transit station areas, and why? • How have regulatory environments affected the development in and around transit stations? Have they been a significant factor in constraining or otherwise shaping the agglomeration patterns in metropolitan regions? • What are some of the historical patterns that have influenced transit development? Have these been key conditions in determining the types of investments made in or near transit stations?

54 • What impact has the financial crisis of 2008 had on the trajectory of transit investment and the potential benefits of agglomeration? • Do property prices reflect the additional value provided by transit access? • Do transit investments free employers to pursue other location strategies by increasing the flexibility of travel options for workers? We do use some quantitative data for the case studies, largely from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) database from the US Census Bureau. These data are based primarily on employer-reported worker characteristics, including place of residence, place of work, and industry type, and are available from 2002 to 2008 for the block, block group, and census tract levels to explore the changes in employment patterns in our three case study regions. The maps and figures in this case study report are based primarily on that data source, and so are limited to the period 2002 to 2008. Corridor to metro area comparisons are based on selecting census block groups within a quarter-mile of stations; we defined “within” as “having any part within a quarter-mile radius.” The LEHD data includes some imputed characteristics of worker-employer relationships, such as the work location for firms that have multiple work sites, but they are the most accurate and comprehensive data on employer-worker location currently available to show changes over time at a corridor or small-area level. Other quantitative data sources include the Texas Transportation Institute congestion index, and the 2008 American Community Survey county- and place-level reporting on commute mode. When available, we also mapped land use and zoning GIS data for Los Angeles, Dallas, and Salt Lake City. The land use and zoning characteristics along each of the transit corridors give insight into the regulatory environment that may impact development around transit stations. Our secondary data sources include agency reports, plans, newspaper articles, and websites that provide details about the historical development and current performance of the transit systems and metropolitan area economies in the three case study areas. These data are limited given their subjective nature, but they provide valuable evidence of the types of important qualities developers and firms are interested in when they make decisions to locate or expand operations locally, regionally, or nationally. Finally, each of the case studies relies heavily on key-informant interviews identified during the data collection process. The informants were selected through contacts made with the responsible transit agencies and their industry partner organizations. A summary of the interview topics and questions is included at the end of this report. The purpose of the interviews was to triangulate the data collected in the case studies, and to verify that the stories presented here accurately depicted the events as understood by those involved in the process or with intimate knowledge of the transit development process. Where conflicts emerged in the stories we gathered from multiple sources, we made notes in the text below. The three case studies follow and each is organized in three sections. First, we briefly summarize the current state of transit within each region, focusing on areas of recent transit investment where agglomeration benefits would most likely be observed. Second, we discuss in greater detail the specific economic development strategies undertaken by regional governance entities to promote job growth, transit ridership, transit-oriented development, and particular industrial development. This second section of each case study includes a discussion of constraining development policies and other factors that could limit agglomeration. Finally, we discuss the current context, particularly the potential role of road congestion in spurring transit-

55 led densification, recent changes in employment and residential densification near transit development, zoning regulations, and existing land use.

56 Los Angeles – Metro Orange Line Our first case study is the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. We selected the Orange Line because it is the only fixed-guideway BRT system built recently in the US, and because Los Angeles is a high-growth, global city with a progressive transit development agenda. Los Angeles County has the largest population of any county in the United States, and the larger five-county metropolitan region is the second largest, behind only New York City (2). Yet, until recently, Los Angeles lagged behind in rail transit service. Like many other metropolitan areas, much of the city’s extensive rail and streetcar network was dismantled in the 1950s in favor of rubber-tired bus service. But in the last two decades, the Los Angeles region has become one of the largest investors in rail transit, and their system includes several innovative approaches to transit development. Currently the most congested metro area in the US, Los Angeles has made significant efforts to improve its transportation system by investing heavily in rail transit in recent years. Since 2005, the Orange Line has shown some promise in providing agglomeration benefits to the San Fernando Valley. Evidence exists that suggests transit-driven densification has occurred along the Orange Line corridor, although it is difficult to attribute to the presence of the BRT line in particular. Examination of time-series employment data from 2002 to 2008 shows increases in resident worker population densities along most of the corridor, and pockets of increased employment density, most notably near the western terminus of the Orange Line. These data also indicate a significant increase in the presence of jobs in industries prone to agglomeration (such as finance and insurance, professional services, health care, and public administration) near the corridor over the period. The Orange Line has not been targeted by the City of Los Angeles for specific zoning regulation changes to encourage particular types of development. The regulations remain the same as the rest of the region. This contrasts with regulatory changes around other transit lines, in particular the Blue and Red Lines near Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles, where more direct efforts have been made to increase density in housing and certain industries. The Red and Blue lines, which both converge on downtown Los Angeles, have existed longer than the Orange Line and have been the focus of more intense development programs over the past decade. Economic development initiatives have targeted the downtown area around transit stations as an entertainment hub for the region, with the recent development of the Staples Center and LA Live. Planning tools for transit-oriented development such as form-based zoning and changes to parking standards have been seen as helpful in certain segments of the real estate market, but not others (particularly not in the high-end market) according to professionals we have talked with. Current state of the transit system The current LA Metro rail system is made up of five different lines, distinguished by color designation. The Blue Line—connecting Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles—opened in 1990 and has an average weekday ridership of over 82,000 boardings. The Green Line, opened in 1995, runs from Redondo Beach east to Norfolk with significant stops at Los Angeles International Airport and the Imperial/Wilmington transfer station. The Green Line has an average daily ridership of over 42,000 boardings. The Red Line subway, opened in 1993, is

57 entirely underground and cost significantly more than the other rail lines to construct ($4.5 billion compared to a combined $3.7 billion for the four other lines). It initially included just five stations as a starter project, but was rapidly expanded to serve the dense urban Hollywood corridor by 1999 and North Hollywood in 2000. In terms of ridership, the Red Line nearly equals the other three fixed-guideway rail lines, with average weekday boardings of nearly 150,000. The newest fixed-guideway rail line to open is the Gold Line, connecting the eastern suburb of Pasadena to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles and portions of East Los Angeles through an extension just opened in 2009. The Gold Line was the second most expensive line to construct at a cost of $1.8 billion, but with over 35,000 weekday boardings, it has not yet seen the ridership figures of the other fixed-guideway lines (3). The fifth fixed-guideway transit line is called the Orange Line, but unlike the other four, it is a rubber-tired bus rapid transit line, on a fixed guideway with few at-grade crossings. The Metro Orange Line runs from the Warner Center (a major mixed-use retail and office park) in Canoga Park, California, to North Hollywood, where it connects to the Metro Red Line with service to downtown Los Angeles. The Orange Line was constructed for a fraction of the cost of the other lines, at a total of $330 million on old rail right-of-way (3). The Orange Line ridership had surpassed ridership projections for 2020 after only seven months of operation, topping over 20,000 average weekday boardings (4). Service is provided with articulated buses specially designed for the Orange Line. The buses include three doors for faster boarding, and no fareboxes. Fares are prepaid only. Peak weekday operating headways (time between buses) are about 4-5 minutes; off-peak headways average about 12-14 minutes (5). Travel time savings are substantial, though not as high as predicted, due to safety and signaling issues. Average speeds along the dedicated busway were just 17 miles per hour westbound and 21 miles per hour eastbound, comparable to the Ventura Metro Rapid bus, which does not operate on a dedicated busway. Despite this slow operating speed, eighty-five percent of respondents reported a reduction in travel time for the same trip by switching to the Orange Line (4). The route’s fourteen miles of busway include fourteen stations along the primarily east- west corridor. Seven of these fourteen stations have free parking available, and two of the seven offer additional reserved spaces for a fee. The number of spaces varies depending on the station, ranging from about 300 to 1,200 (6). Economic development and related policies Much of the motivation for transit improvement in the Los Angeles region came from federal requirements to meet air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. Planners, however, recognized the potential economic development opportunities that coincided with the shift to transit and other transportation technology solutions to the congestion-related air quality issues in Southern California. The Regional Mobility Element (RME) of 1994, prepared by SCAG, presented a vision of industrial clustering of advanced transportation technology as an economic development strategy for the region. According to the Plan Performance section of the RME, by 2014, $56 billion in capital investments would yield a projected 58,000 to 134,000 jobs per year with annual aggregate salaries totaling between $1.2 billion and $2.6 billion. Advanced transportation technology investments were estimated to yield another 350,000 jobs in the regional industry cluster over the same period (7). In the next decade, SCAG launched the COMPASS Blueprint initiative, with goals that differ substantially from the 1994 RME. COMPASS recognizes the challenges of widespread

58 change and instead focuses on a strategy targeting two percent of the region's land area with investments. The goals are to promote mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability through targeted "opportunity areas." The primary focus shifted away from a broad, regional approach toward improving transit throughout the region to a specific set of policies aiming to invest around existing transit and employment centers (8). These four measures—mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability—incorporate a vision with transit-oriented development and urban design at the center. The opportunity areas focus on half-mile buffers around existing transit systems and stations, and are further broken into a number of other categories, summarized below. Two types of development forecasting in the COMPASS Blueprint stand out from the rest. First, COMPASS planners projected the impact of new development occurring through infill development and redevelopment in terms of new households and new jobs. The percentage of new jobs created through infill practices varied based on regional location, from a high of 67 percent in the Los Angeles Basin to zero percent in Imperial. Other areas with high percentages of new jobs through redevelopment included: Orange County (26%), Ventura (27%), and Riverside (16%). The overall region was projected to gain one third of new jobs through redevelopment practices. The following are identified as potential opportunity areas for the Joint Development Program (9). • Metro Centers • City Centers • Rail Transit Stops • Bus Rapid Transit Corridors • Airports, Ports, and Industrial Centers • Priority Residential Infill Areas • COMPASS Principles Priority Areas The other important piece of the job creation forecast by COMPASS was related to projections of the employment mix. The report focused on retail and service employment, classifying everything else as “other”. The main assumption of this projection related to this report was the expected growth in service employment with a subsequent decline in “other” employment. Los Angeles Metro has another program to invest in existing transit centers, which they call the Joint Development Program. When Metro built the Blue and Red Lines, they acquired several parcels of land surrounding the station locations. Since the stations are underground, these parcels were allocated to the Joint Development Program to pursue mixed-use, infill development opportunities. The goals were to reduce auto use, increase density around transit stations, and provide an additional return on investment for the transit system. Though the process of negotiating and completing these projects has been slow, Metro has finished eleven projects by 2010, with one in construction and over 30 in negotiation or under consideration (10). Most of the projects to date have added retail or high-density residential space, though notable exceptions include the Wilshire/Vermont middle school and the 7th and Flower Metro Red Line station (550,000 square feet of office space) (11). Some of the proposed projects are also targeting office space development, though most include some form of residential component. Another Metro program aiming for economic development goals is the Metro 30/10 Initiative. This plan is to accelerate the investment in transit projects to meet employment and emissions goals. Los Angeles County Measure R of 2008 approved a local tax to fund

59 transportation projects, and the 30/10 Initiative is aggressively leveraging the new revenue source to begin work on twelve key Metro expansion projects immediately (12). These projects include several Joint Development Projects for real estate development at the new station locations. Overall, it does not appear that development and land use policies have significantly constrained or encouraged particular types of developments along the Orange Line. Rather, developments have been allowed to be guided by market forces. Office development has been slow due to oversaturation in the previous ten years (LA Interviewee B, personal communication, 01-07-2011). In contrast, the Red and Blue Lines have seen more development than other areas, despite limitations in the marketplace. The MTA has taken a central role in developing areas around stations with its Joint Development Project. This project is generating $16 million in annual revenue for the transit system and grows every year (LA Interviewee A, personal communication, 01-18-2011). Mixed-use retail and residential developments have been far more common around transit stations on the Red and Blue Lines. Two notable exceptions cited by interview participants were the Staples Center/LA Live development and the Hollywood/Western station. Both of these were large, complex projects focused on creating regional entertainment destinations (LA Interviewee A, personal communication, 01-18-2011). Current context – employment, transportation, and land use Accessibility/Congestion More congested urban areas are more likely to experience a densification effect from transit services, because in such urban areas there is pent-up demand for travel into and out of congested areas, and because separate right-of-way transit systems can provide that access. In 2007, annual delay per peak traveler in the Los Angeles metro area was 70 hours, which is 71% higher than the average for all 90 urban areas in the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2009 Urban Mobility Report, and the highest of any metro area in the US by a significant margin. Comparing with peer cities, annual delay in Los Angeles is 37% higher than the average for very large urban areas. Between 1997 and 2007, congestion in the Los Angeles area has remained relatively constant, remaining between 67 and 72 hours of annual delay per peak traveler for all years. Over this same period, the average congestion in very large urban areas and all urban areas contained in the TTI report increased by 19 and 14 percent, respectively (13). Los Angeles is well known as one of the nation’s most congested urban areas, and fixed- guideway transit may allow for increased industry densification in congested urban areas. The extent to which this is possible for BRT systems like the Orange Line is more difficult to assess, but given the qualities of the Orange Line’s infrastructure—most notably the reserved right-of- way—the probability of equal benefits with more traditional fixed-guideway systems is high. However, the right-of-way is interrupted by multiple grade crossings. Congestion at traffic intersections was reported in one study of the Orange Line as a major limiting factor in the improvement of speed along the corridor (4), so this may be mitigating the benefits of reserved right-of-way in this instance. Employment and industry characteristics Los Angeles County is the largest county in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and was home to 3.6 million jobs in 2008. More than 40 percent of those jobs were in consumer services sectors, such as retail trade, education, health and other services. Additional key industries in the

60  area include tourism and hospitality, international trade, entertainment, and logistics. Los Angeles is also the second largest manufacturing center in the US (14). FIGURE 5 2002 to 2008 LA Metro Orange Line corridor change in workers at place of work by Census block group. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) 21 miles 0 LOS ANGELES I-405 CA 134 I-405 I-5 US 101 CA 170 BEVERLY HILLS I I I WEST HOLLYWOOD Change in Employment per Sq. Mile 02-08 LEHD data by Census Block Group 5,000 and above 1,000 to 5,000 250 to 1,000 0 to 250 -250 to 0 -250 and below Existing Metro Rail and Transitway Red Line (heavy rail) Orange Line (BRT) I To downtown t t t Los Angeles l l l

61 FIGURE 6 2002 to 2008 LA Metro Orange Line corridor change in workers at place of home by Census block group. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the change in workers by employment and residence locations between 2002 and 2008 for the area surrounding the Metro Orange Line. It is evident that resident worker density generally increased between 2002 and 2008 along the Orange Line, especially east of Interstate 405. While there were some declines in employment density along the corridor, the area near the west terminus of the Orange Line gained more than 5,000 jobs per square mile between 2002 and 2008. The area north of the east terminus also saw increased employment density. In 2008, there were 54,000 jobs, roughly 1.5% of total jobs in the county, located along the Orange Line corridor.4 Figure 7 below shows a comparison of employment by industry for the corridor and Los Angeles County as a whole. Employment along the Orange Line corridor is more concentrated in business services, particularly finance and insurance and management, than the county, with 60 percent of corridor jobs within the business service sector. 4 The ‘corridor’ is defined as all Block Groups that fall within ¼ mile of a transit stop. miles 0 1 2 LOS ANGELES I-405 CA 134 I-405 I-5 US 101 CA 170 BEVERLY HILLS I I I WEST HOLLYWOOD Change in Resident Workers per Sq. Mile 02-08 LEHD data by Census Block Group 1,000 and above 500 to 1,000 250 to 500 100 to 250 0 to 100 0 and below Existing Metro Rail and Transitway Red Line (heavy rail) Orange Line (BRT) I To downtown t t t Los Angeles l l l

62 FIGURE 7 Los Angeles County and corridor employment by sector. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) Between 2002 and 2008, employment along the Orange Line corridor grew by about 13 percent. Figure 8 (below) shows the distribution of this growth across industries. There appears to be a quite significant structural change in the type of activities located along the corridor, as illustrated by significant increases in employment within finance and insurance, professional services, and health care. Construction, manufacturing, and transportation employment have also grown more in the corridor than for Los Angeles County as a whole.

63 FIGURE 8 Change in Los Angeles County and corridor employment by sector, 2002 to 2008. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) Figure 9 (below) shows the composition of the change in jobs by sector between 2002 and 2008. Nearly a third of all new jobs in the corridor were in the business services sector. In Los Angeles County, the same sector contributed less than 10 percent to overall job growth.

64 FIGURE 9 Los Angeles County and near corridor job growth by sector, 2002 to 2008 (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) In contrast to the other two case studies (see below), we do find evidence of increased concentration of activities likely to enjoy agglomeration economies being attracted to locations along the MTA transit lines, although there are also losses in manufacturing employment near the corridors. Zoning regulations Los Angeles’s zoning regulations break land use into eight primary categories: Agricultural, Residential Estate, One-family Residential, Multiple Residential, Commercial, Manufacturing, Parking, and Open Space/Public Facilities/Submerged Lands. Within these categories, specific uses are allowed, and where uses are common between zones within a category, zoning restrictions are effectively hierarchical, as additional restrictions are based on allowable values of building height, distances between buildings, and lot dimensions. In addition to the eight primary categories of zones, a set of Supplemental Use Districts exists to regulate specific uses, such as surface mining and oil drilling, that are not already adequately covered. Additionally, there exist a number of area-specific zoning designations. Los Angeles’s zoning regulations do not explicitly include zoning designations for mixed-use development (15). Of the three case study regions, Los Angeles has been most proactive in pursuing zoning and other regulatory changes to guide development near their transit stations. Form-based codes and changes to parking regulations (from minimums to maximums) have not yet yielded the types of results planners would like to see. According to one industry professional, this is due to unfamiliarity among the developers, who do not yet know how to take full advantage of the new -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% All Corridor Public Business Services Leisure Trade and transport Construction Manufacturing Primary

65 regulations in their projects. Developers are also resistant to parking regulation changes in certain markets because they find limited parking to be difficult to market to high-end residents and businesses, even near transit (LA Interviewee B, personal communication, 01-07-2011). This is known as the "density dilemma": as you go more dense, you have to add more parking, which adds more cost to the development. The LA Metro Orange and Red lines, as well as part of the Gold Line, are contained within the city limits of Los Angeles and fall within its zoning ordinance. The Gold Line also passes through the City of Pasadena and the City of South Pasadena, as well as East Los Angeles, which is an unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County. Interactive zoning maps for the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County were used in conjunction with existing zoning maps available for Pasadena and South Pasadena to describe zoning along the transit corridors. Land use GIS files from SCAG were then used to create the corridor-level maps below. SCAG has 33 land use categories, which we aggregated into the nine broader categories seen along the Orange Line in Figure 10 below. These categories, defined below, are grouped around land use characteristics that are important to development along the transit corridor. • Commercial: includes General Office Use, Regional Shopping Centers, Retail Stores and Commercial Services, Hotels and Motels, and Other Commercial • Industrial: includes Light Manufacturing, Assembly, and Industrial Services, Light Industrial, Heavy Manufacturing, Heavy Industrial, and Wholesaling and Warehousing • Mixed Use: Mixed Commercial and Industrial and Mixed Urban • Institutional: includes Public Facilities, Special Use Facilities, Education K-12, Education – College, and Military Installations • Single-family Residential: includes Single Family Residential, Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks, Mixed Residential, and Rural Residential • Multi-family Residential: includes Multi-Family Residential • Public Lands & Open Spaces: includes Open Spaces and Recreation, Vacant, and Water • Agriculture: includes Agriculture • Other: includes Transportation, Communications, and Utilities and Under Construction

66 FIGURE 10 2005 LA Metro corridor land use, San Fernando Valley Area. (Source: SCAG Land Use GIS Data) As the LA Metro Orange Line travels west from North Hollywood Station, where it connects with the Metro Red Line, it travels primarily through areas of single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial use. Generally, between major cross-streets, the area immediately along the corridor is primarily single-family or multi-family residential, and areas on the corridor near major cross-streets are commercial. There are, however, several significant concentrations of industrial and commercial development along the corridor, specifically from Hazeltine Avenue to the eastern edge of the Sepulveda Basin (Industrial), from Etiwanda Avenue to Wilbur Avenue (primarily Industrial), and from DeSoto Avenue to the western terminus of the line (Commercial). Zoning GIS data was not available for Los Angeles, and as a result we were also unable to map properties that relate to regulatory constraints along the corridor, such as maximum building height. Online interactive maps and existing maps of zoning within the City of Los Angeles and neighboring municipalities were used to examine zoning along the transit corridors. 1 2 miles 0 US 101 CA 170 US 101 I-405 LOS ANGELES WEST HOLLYWOOD 2005 Los Angeles County Land Use Commercial Industrial Mixed Use Institutional Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential Public Lands and Open Spaces Agriculture Other

67 Salt Lake City – TRAX light rail The Salt Lake City TRAX light rail system is included as a case study because, in addition to its recent investment in rail transit, Salt Lake City is a smaller, regional economic center unlike Los Angeles and Dallas. Though the particulars of this case are not generalizable to the broader population of mid-sized metropolitan regions, we believe that Salt Lake City provides some insights to how smaller metropolitan regions approach transit investment as an economic development strategy. As shown below, Salt Lake City took a transportation-oriented approach to rail transit investment. While planners in Salt Lake City did identify the potential for economic development and transit-oriented growth, they did not implement strong measures to ensure its success, at least initially. Instead, they relied primarily on engineering-driven measures of performance to evaluate system alternatives. While increased transit investment in the Salt Lake City area—including that in the UTA TRAX light rail system—has played a key role in congestion relief, there does not seem to be much, if any, empirical evidence that it has resulted in significant agglomeration. Prior to the implementation of the two TRAX lines, UTA operated frequent, successful bus service along both current light rail corridors, limiting the potential improvements in accessibility of businesses to labor markets that could result from the transition from bus to light rail service. There is also limited empirical evidence of transit-driven densification along the corridor. Examination of time-series employment data from 2002 to 2008 shows increases in employment and resident worker population densities near the corridor, however, it is not clear if this is a direct result of transit investment, or part of a broader trend. At the same time, these data do not indicate an increased presence of jobs in industries typical to agglomeration near the corridor over the period. Additionally, since the opening of the TRAX lines, there have been no corresponding changes in zoning laws to encourage or allow increased densification along the corridor. With the exception of a few small areas zoned specifically for transit-oriented development, zoning regulations along the TRAX light rail corridors do not differ substantially from those outside the corridors. This lack of special zoning would appear to reflect a minimal focus on potential economic development impacts during the planning of the initial TRAX lines. In our discussions with professional planners and developers in the Salt Lake City region, we came across a slightly different story with respect to transit-driven densification. Though many acknowledged the slow pace of change with respect to transit development, some participants pointed out what they felt were significant changes in the downtown area, where the two TRAX lines converge and the FrontRunner rail terminates. Densification of employment has been occurring in this area in recent years, some of which may be attributable to the presence of high-quality transit service. The University of Utah was also cited as a firm that has specifically targeted policies like limited parking supply while increasing employment density on campus. Intermountain Medical Center selected a site for regional expansion in part because of its high accessibility both via transit and highways. It has a stated policy of acquiring property for future expansion, with transit access as one of many criteria in mind. Other station areas have been slower to develop, in particular in agglomeration-type industries. According to our discussions, one reason may be the historical nature of the rail areas as former industrial corridors, which has limited the redevelopment potential for a variety of reasons, including land cleanup, assembly, and lack of infrastructure.

68 Current state of the transit system The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) serves the metropolitan region of Salt Lake City, and consists of fixed-route and express buses, three light rail lines, and one commuter rail line extending north to Ogden, Utah. The 18-mile light rail service, called TRAX, which was developed in part for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, connects the southern suburbs to downtown Salt Lake City and the University of Utah with daily ridership of about 42,000 trips. The 44-mile FrontRunner system, a commuter rail service, opened in April 2008. It serves a modest 4,500 daily trips. The UTA also opened a bus rapid transit service, called MAX, in July of 2008. UTA bus service carries 74,000 daily trips (16). The Sandy/Salt Lake City Line, which opened in 1999, operates along the I-15 corridor from Salt Lake City approximately 15 miles south to Sandy. The University Line, which opened in 2001, operates between the University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City, approximately five miles to the west. At Salt Lake Central Station, where the two lines meet, transfers are also available to FrontRunner commuter rail service. On weekdays, trains run each direction every 15 minutes on both lines. On weekends, service on each line operates every 20 minutes. In addition, there are 4-6 trains running in each direction during peak hours between Sandy and the University Medical Center. Standard TRAX fares are $2.00, and a fare free zone is maintained within the central downtown area (17). Parking is available at all stops south of 900 South on the Sandy/Salt Lake Line, with the exception of Sandy Expo-9400 S; there is no parking available along the University Line. Parking is free at all stations. The majority of the stations have 100 to 400 parking spaces, however the Murray Central and Sandy Civic Center stations have higher availability with 750 and 1185 spaces, respectively (17). Since the Sandy/Salt Lake City Line opened in 1999, TRAX consistently gained riders until 2007, near a peak in fuel prices. Between 2007 and 2009, annual ridership dropped approximately 18% from its peak at over 16 million annual unlinked trips (18). It is also worth noting that during the period of rapid growth in TRAX ridership, the Salt Lake City area experienced a significant decrease in congestion, according to the Texas Transportation Institute (13). Prior to the opening of the TRAX light rail lines, both of the corridors were served by multiple UTA bus routes. The State Street corridor (along the Sandy/Salt Lake City Line) was the most successful bus corridor in the region, featuring numerous routes combining to provide an effective frequency of ten minutes all day. This service was mostly replaced by the light rail line, although some bus service was maintained. Bus service on the North Temple portion of the University Line corridor was also very frequent, and mostly replaced by light rail, with some bus service preserved. The eastern portion of the University Line, along 400 South also featured bus service, which was mostly replaced by light rail. Bus service also existed between downtown and the Salt Lake City International Airport, but on a much less frequent basis. The grid structure of the bus system in the downtown area was strengthened significantly to facilitate better connectivity between light rail and bus. Economic development and related policies Land use impacts were not considered much, if at all, during the planning of the original TRAX lines. The planning process was focused instead on catering to the area’s growing travel demand and in particular growing demand for non-auto travel options. Work conducted during

69 the planning phases of the initial light rail lines generally addressed the potential changes in development patterns that could result from the opening of the service, but did not attempt to quantify any associated benefits (19, 20). This work also made reference to how well the light rail lines—down to the individual station level—would likely support the existing development plans, but again did not attempt to quantify impacts. Since the planning of the original TRAX lines, UTA has continued to focus on meeting transportation demand rather than influencing development patterns (UTA Planner, personal communication, 10-8-2010). Interviews with UTA officials revealed that early planning for TRAX projects was not sophisticated in terms of treating land use in connection to transit proposals. This was seen as a major early barrier to adoption by several interviewees. Overall there have been some attempts by planning authorities in Salt Lake City to encourage development of retail and leisure activities around transit stations. The fact that the UTA owns undeveloped land along the corridor may also have constrained the growth of the type of activities that would be expected to benefit from densification. It is unclear, however, how much this has affected the development patterns observed after the introduction of the transit lines. According to development professionals we talked to, UTA’s control over large areas of land has placed limits on development around certain stations, in particular those north and west of downtown. Two interviewees cited problems with lease arrangements as a particularly troublesome burden on development projects, while more than one interviewee noted the lack of adequate infrastructure investment in the area as a problem. Though these limits have been frustrating for both private developers and UTA, SLC Interviewee F points out UTA's position on development: "We're very patient capital." This limitation has been addressed recently through state legislation, opening up five projects to move forward with development. This legislative change has created a groundswell of support for TOD in the region, as many of the cities with stations have requested projects. SLC Interviewee F expresses the desire to seek more development, even in areas where UTA does not currently hold land: "If there was a way to target stations that are underdeveloped where we don't have land, then we'd do it", especially in places were current uses are obsolete or "blighted" (SLC Interviewee F, personal communication, 12-12-2010). Although reaction by businesses to economic development around stations has been somewhat mixed, the Gateway shopping center near the end of the TRAX line in downtown Salt Lake City has became an attractive destination for shoppers using public transit. The Gateway is viewed by developers and transit officials as a good model of transit-oriented development. They noted the ability to build off initial success to create an even more attractive transit-business partnership when transit was extended through the Gateway shopping corridor to serve the entire area. Current context – employment, transportation, and land use While this case study focuses on the original two TRAX lines, current transportation plans provide insight into UTA’s consideration of development and land use in the evaluation of transit projects. Five new light rail and commuter rail lines, which will double UTA’s current rail network, are scheduled to open by 2015 (17). Corridor evaluation reports for UTA’s planned extensions to the TRAX system make it clear that the corridors were planned primarily with transportation service and engineering considerations in mind. UTA’s FrontLine 2015 Plan includes a few general references to particular alignments increasing TOD potential, but there is no mention of why or how this is expected to take place.

70 Similarly, in the 2007-2030 Regional Transportation Plan of the regional metropolitan planning organization, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), transportation system alternatives are evaluated based on performance measures including transit shares, transit speeds, and transit access to major activity and mixed-use centers, but the plan does not include any measures intended to evaluate the land-use impacts of new transit projects. The WFRC also utilizes cost/revenue forecasting to assess the viability of every transit project in its 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan, but does not refer to any evaluation measures concerning the impact of a project on future economic development. One transportation engineer at WFRC described the regional challenges associated with growth around transit as attributed primarily to a lack of familiarity by financiers and developers, rather than any specific regulatory constraint (SLC Interviewee G, personal communication, 12-21-2010). Despite UTA’s historical limited focus on land use impacts, it has recently created a TOD group, which is looking at development issues as they relate to transit, and has conducted workshops and produced publications on the topic of land use and transit-oriented development. Accessibility/congestion Constraints on accessing downtown Salt Lake City have implications on economic development. The total annual delay for drivers in Salt Lake City steadily rose until 2003, when levels began to decrease; by 2006 the annual delay was below that of 2000. Similarly, travel time index and congestion cost also began to decrease after 2003, despite the fact that population and daily vehicle-miles of travel were still increasing (13). These trends may suggest that at a large scale, Salt Lake City’s transit initiatives may be able to take advantage of congestion conditions to provide greater access to dense areas or even allow for increased density otherwise impossible to achieve with just mixed traffic, congested highways, and arterials. In 2007, annual delay per peak traveler in the Salt Lake City metro area was 27 hours, which is 34% less than the average for all 90 Urban Areas in TTI’s 2009 Urban Mobility Report. Comparing with peer cities, Salt Lake City’s annual delay is 17% higher than the average for medium urban areas. However it is important to note that Salt Lake City is one of the largest urban areas in this category. Between 2003 and 2006, the Salt Lake City area experienced a significant decrease in congestion—on the order of 30%. Over this same period, the average congestion in medium urban areas and all urban areas contained in the TTI report increased steadily (13). Congestion isn't viewed as a major problem in Salt Lake City, despite its geographic constraints, according to our interviews. Salt Lake City has a good supply of high-capacity, high- quality roads. There are a couple of problem areas on the I-15 linear corridor during commute times. Transit at a minimum keeps up with the congestion during peak periods, but generally traffic is not a problem. Congestion factors are different in Utah than in the other two cases. Salt Lake City gets significant snowfall in the winters, making the roads difficult to travel. In these cases, and cases of accident-induced congestion, transit service offers more reliability on daily commutes, but it is not competitive in terms of time with free-flowing traffic. Recent highway expansions along the FrontRunner commuter rail line have eroded some of the congestion-related advantage, as have decreases in gasoline prices from their peak in 2008. Employment and industry characteristics The Salt Lake City metro area is home to a fast growing economy that relies heavily on the service sector, particularly information technology, health care, and tourism. As in much of

71 the US, retail and manufacturing are still the largest sectors by total employment. However, these sectors have been steadily contracting while the professional, technical, and scientific services sectors have been rapidly increasing. The Salt Lake City area is also home to many call centers spanning a variety of industries, and the area has become a regional center for banking and finance. As the capital of Utah, and the home of the University of Utah, government jobs comprise a significant portion of employment in Salt Lake City (21, 22). When asked about industry development strategies, interviewees gave mixed responses. SLC Interviewee G believes that most of the transit-oriented development is residential-focused, and very little is targeting firms or industries (SLC Interviewee G, personal communication, 12- 21-2010). The University of Utah may be a notable exception, but it was in place before the transit line was created. To what extent the University’s plans could have been possible without transit is unknown. Some of their plans, however, have been thwarted by the development and finance community's unwillingness to assume the risk of untraditional development plans (particularly with respect to lower parking standards). Firm expansion was cited by SLC Interviewee F as an important part of the transit development strategy undertaken by UTA. He gave the examples of the IRS facility expansion in Ogden along the FrontRunner commuter rail and the Daybreak development in the western part of the valley. The latter is a very significant expansion of both firm and residential development by the land-owning mining company, which sounds a lot like a "new town"-type project. Adobe Software has also sought expansion near transit facilities as one of their key location factors, and UTA has worked with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to assist them and other firms in identifying real estate. In Murray, Intermountain Healthcare has recently opened a new hospital, which may explain some of the employment density increase we have seen on our maps. Away from transit, in West Jordan, some of the employment density increase may be due to typical suburban firm relocations, but it also may be an anticipated reaction to the expansion of transit in that direction. Murray has pursued development around stations, particularly medical firms, through national marketing efforts led by private development firms. They view Intermountain as a strategically important asset for economic development and feel like they have been successful in their efforts to attract this industry specifically. SLC Interviewee E confirmed that tech companies are interested in developing in the region, and are looking for transit access as one of many factors when searching for locations (SLC Interviewee E, personal communication, 01-05-2011). He said one in particular was seeking a location in the southern part of the region, where rail plans to expand in the future. Analysis of employment and population data gives further insight into economic development around TRAX stations. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the percent change in employment (workers at place of work) and resident (workers at place of home) density between 2002 and 2008, respectively.

72 FIGURE 11 2002 to 2008 UTA TRAX corridor change in workers at place of work by Census block group. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) 0 miles 1 2 Salt Lake Citylt itlt itlt it International AirportI t r ti l ir rtI t r ti l ir rtI t r ti l ir rt Universityi r iti r iti r it of Utahf tf tf t I-215 I-215I-15 I-80I-215 I-80 I-15 I-80 I-15 MOUNT OLYMPUS COTTONWOOD HEIGHTSIII SALT LAKE CITY SOUTH JORDAN WEST JORDAN TAYLORSVILLEIII MIDVALEIII WHITE CITYI II II I SANDY LITTLE COTTONWOOI I I GRANITEIII MURRAY SOUTH SALT LAKE COTTONWOOD WEST MILLCREEKIII HOLLADAY EAST MILLCREEK I I I CANYON RIM I I I Change in Employment per Sq. Mile 02-08 LEHD data by Census Block Group 1,000 and above 500 to 1,000 250 to 500 0 to 250 -250 to 0 -250 and below Existing UTA Rail Service Commuter Rail TRAX Light Rail ITo Ogden

73 FIGURE 12 2002 to 2008 UTA TRAX corridor change in workers at place of home by Census block group. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) As illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 12, both employment and resident worker population have generally become more dense along the original two TRAX lines in recent years, though it is unclear whether the new transit lines have been a major catalyst for this 0 miles 1 2 Salt Lake Citylt itlt itlt it International AirportI t r ti l ir rtI t r ti l ir rtI t r ti l ir rt Universityi r iti r iti r it of Utahf tf tf t I-215 I-80 I-15 I-215 I-80 I-215 I-15 I-80 I-15 MOUNT OLYMPUS COTTONWOOD HEIGHTSIII SALT LAKE CITY WEST JORDAN TAYLORSVILLEIII MIDVALEIII WHITE CITYI II II I SANDY LITTLE COTTONWOOI I I GRANITEIII MURRAY SOUTH SALT LAKE COTTONWOOD WEST MILLCREEKIII HOLLADAY EAST MILLCREEK I I I CANYON RIM I I I Change in Resident Workers per Sq. Mile 02-08 LEHD data by Census Block Group 1,000 and above 500 to 1,000 250 to 500 100 to 250 0 to 100 0 and below Existing UTA Rail Service Commuter Rail TRAX Light Rail ITo Ogden

74 change, or whether this is part of a broader trend of densification along major corridors in the area. Areas with particularly large increases in density include the downtown area, the area just north of the University TRAX line between downtown and the University of Utah, and the area along the North/South TRAX line near Murray. Each of these areas has seen a significant increase in both employment and resident worker density. Additionally, the areas along the North/South TRAX line in the southern portion of Salt Lake City proper and near Midvale have seen increases in resident worker density, but no corresponding increases in employment density. At a regional level, the southwestern suburbs have been an area that has seen a substantial increase in resident worker density, and a more moderate increase in employment density, while the area southeast of Salt Lake City has experienced decreasing employment and resident worker density. Of about 540,000 jobs in Salt Lake County, nearly 140,000 are located along the light rail corridor. More than 50% of jobs are in consumer service sectors, such as retail trade, accommodation, and public services. Business services comprise just under 30%. As shown in Figure 13, the distribution of jobs by sector in Salt Lake County and along the corridor is quite similar. The proportion of jobs in business service sectors and public service sectors is higher along the corridor, while in Salt Lake County, the concentration is higher in secondary industries and in trade sectors. FIGURE 13 Salt Lake County and corridor employment by sector. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) In terms of changes in jobs between 2002 and 2008, growth along the corridor has been higher than for Salt Lake County in construction and real estate, as well as management services

75 (see Figure 14). This may be seen as an indication of higher levels of development along the corridor over the time period. However, other sectors that we would expect to benefit from agglomeration economies, such as information services, finance and insurance, and professional and administrative services, have experienced similar or lower levels of growth compared with those seen in Salt Lake County. FIGURE 14 Change in Salt Lake County and corridor employment by sector, 2002 to 2008. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) In Figure 15 (below), we see that a large share of the new jobs generated along the corridor between 2002 and 2008 has been in the public service sector (we include education, health care, and public administration in these categories), while in Salt Lake County, business services have seen the largest increase. Some of this increase along the corridor is likely due to expansion of the University of Utah. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the University draws a large share of TRAX ridership on the line, primarily students.

76 FIGURE 15 Salt Lake County and near corridor job growth by sector, 2002 to 2008. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) Zoning regulations Salt Lake City zoning code divides land use into five primary categories: Residential, Commercial, Manufacturing, Downtown/Gateway, and Special Purpose. In addition, twelve types of overlay districts are specified, which can be effective concurrently with any zoning designation from the primary five categories. Within each zoning designation, permissible uses and qualifying provisions are listed, and common limitations on characteristics such as building height and landscaping are presented. Where multiple land uses are acceptable in a given zoning designation, each acceptable use has its own requirements for lot dimensions (23). Along the Salt Lake City portion of the TRAX corridor, we identified 26 individual zoning designations, which we then aggregated into the 7 broader categories seen in Figure 16. These categories, defined below, are grouped based on land use characteristics that are important to development along the transit corridor and parallel those mapped for Los Angeles. • Commercial: includes Community Business, Corridor Commercial, General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Community Shopping • Downtown: includes Central Business District, Downtown Support District, Downtown Warehouse/Residential, and Downtown Secondary Central Business District • Mixed Use: includes Residential/Business, Residential/Mixed Use, Residential/Office, Transit Corridor, and Gateway Mixed Use • Single-family Residential: includes Single Family Residential, Single and Two-Family Residential, and Special Development Pattern Residential

77  Multi-family Residential: includes Low Density Multi-family Residential, Moderate Density Multi-family Residential, Moderate/High-Density Multi-family Residential, and High-Density Multi-family Residential  Institutional: includes Institutional and Urban Institutional  Public Lands & Open Spaces: includes Public Lands and Open Space FIGURE 16 2009 Salt Lake City TRAX corridor zoning. (Source: Salt Lake City Zoning GIS Data) From the southern limits of Salt Lake City to approximately 900 South, the area to the west of the Sandy/Salt Lake City Line is zoned General Commercial, while the area to the east of the line consists of a mix of residential zoning designations. As the line travels north into the downtown area, the surrounding area is zoned Downtown Support District between 900 South and 600 South, and Central Business District, beginning at 600 South (24). From the University of Utah, the University Line travels through areas zoned Institutional (the University), and a variety of residential zoning designations, before reaching a three-block corridor zoned Corridor Commercial and Community Shopping between 900 East and 600 East. Between 600 East and 200 East, the University Line travels through an area zoned Transit Corridor, before entering the Central Business District at 200 East and connecting with the Sandy/Salt Lake City Line (24). 0 0.5 1 miles Salt Lake City Zoning Districts Dow ntow n Commercial Mixed Use Institutional Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Public Lands & Open Spaces

78 Heading away from downtown, toward their shared western terminus, the two lines travel through areas zoned Secondary Central Business District, Gateway Mixed Use, Downtown Warehouse/Residential, and General Commercial before terminating at Central Station (24). In addition to permitted uses, Salt Lake City zoning regulates a number of characteristics that affect densification, including lot size, parking requirements, and maximum building height. As an indicator of density restrictions along the corridor and how they compare to the rest of Salt Lake City, Figure 17 and Figure 18 below show maximum building height by zoning parcel for non-residential and residential uses, respectively. Mixed-use zones are designated by hatched patterns on both maps. FIGURE 17 2009 Salt Lake City maximum building height, non-residential zones. (Source: Salt Lake City Zoning GIS Data)

79 FIGURE 18 2009 Salt Lake City maximum building height, residential zones. (Source: Salt Lake City Zoning GIS Data) As expected, zones in downtown Salt Lake City have the largest allowable building heights, zones along the I-15 corridor and near the University of Utah allow for mid-range building heights, and zones in the primarily residential area southeast of downtown have the lowest allowable building heights seen in the area. Zoning along the TRAX lines follows these general trends, indicating that zoning regulations do not reflect efforts to encourage higher- density development along the transit corridor. Although the University TRAX line lies fully within Salt Lake City, the Sandy/Salt Lake City Line also passes through South Salt Lake, Murray, and Midvale before terminating in Sandy. As in Salt Lake City, each municipality is responsible for zoning within its jurisdiction. While designations differ slightly across the different cities, the zoning categories and structure are similar to that of Salt Lake City and to each other. Zoning maps are not presented for the portion of the TRAX corridor passing through these four cities due to the unavailability of GIS zoning files, however, the discussion below is based on existing zoning maps for each city. The City of South Salt Lake is responsible for zoning near the three TRAX stations just south of Salt Lake City. Zoning is designated as Light Industrial to the west of the TRAX line stations and General Commercial, Corridor Commercial, and Mixed to the east of 2100 South, 3300 South, and 3900 South, respectively (25). Along the entire TRAX corridor through South

80 Salt Lake, there is also a TOD Overlay. The next three stations to the south are located within the City of Murray. The 4500 South station is located in a district designated Transit-Oriented Development, the 5300 South station is surrounded by zones designated Mixed Use Development District and Commercial Development Conditional, and the 6400 South station is located in an area zoned as Manufacturing General Conditional (26). The two stations in Midvale, 7200 South and 7800 South, are located in areas designated as Transit-Oriented Development with Single Family zoning districts nearby. In Sandy, the 9000 South Station is in an area zoned primarily as Single Family, with an Industrial, Research Park district very nearby (27). The 9400 South station has zoning designated as Commercial to the west and Single Family to the east. Open Space and Mixed Use zones surround the 10000 South station, the southern terminus of the TRAX line, with Commercial and Single Family districts in close proximity (28). Unlike for Los Angeles, GIS land use data were not available for Salt Lake City or the nearby municipalities. As a result, we relied on zoning GIS data to gain insight into the regulatory environment and land use characteristics around TRAX stations.

81 Regulatory constraints like zoning play important roles in shaping regional economic development in Salt Lake City, as in the other case study regions. Some of the firm expansions in downtown and at the university have been constrained by parking supply. At the University of Utah, parking does not compete favorably with research facilities for land rent, and therefore they have embraced transit; the result has been a 30% mode share of transit for students, faculty and staff, much higher than the regional average. In downtown, firms are wary about parking costs and are seeking alternatives, but workers place a high value on their automobiles and are reluctant to give up parking, at least in the short term. SLC Interviewee F cited the environmental concerns that are somewhat unique to the Salt Lake City region as a major motivator for transit investment in the region. The annual "inversions" that create thick smog have serious respiratory health effects for a lot of people, and UTA has been able to use this highly visible condition as a selling point for transit (SLC Interviewee F, personal communication, 12-12-2010). According to SLC Interviewee D, the primary constraints on development in Murray have mostly been environmental. The stations in Murray are all located along older industrial areas served by freight rail lines, and as a result many of the available development areas have significant contamination that needs to be dealt with prior to redeveloping. To deal with these issues, the city has used tax incremental financing as the primary tool for funding cleanup. Another constraint has been parcel assemblage, but this is not unique to the transit areas; it is an issue anywhere where redevelopment is happening. A third constraint has been infrastructure for pedestrians and transit. Since the redevelopment areas are older industrial zones, they are not configured to support pedestrian and transit movement patterns, and need to be reconfigured as part of the street fabric of the rest of the city to make them more accessible. This has been another use for TIF (SLC Interviewee D, personal communication, 01-21-2011; DFW Interviewee A, personal communication, 02-03-2011). Parking has not been a major constraint in Murray, according to SLC Interviewee D. The city has relaxed minimum parking requirements, but still sees many developers seeking "suburban" style developments with parking supplies greater than the minimum. They do have parking maximums in place in their downtown area. Because of the industrial history of the redevelopment areas, Murray has not seen the kinds of resistance to densification that other communities have faced. These areas have been identified by many community stakeholders as in need of redevelopment, and this has been a great benefit to the process. The real issue or constraint facing potential developers right now is financing. Deals are not happening because no one can raise money for development (SLC Interviewee D, personal communication, 01-21- 2011; SLC Interviewee E, personal communication, 01-05-2011).

82 Dallas – DART light rail This case study focuses on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail system, the first phase of which opened in 1996. Specifically, we examine DART’s first two light rail lines, the Red and Blue lines, which roughly parallel Texas State Highway 75 and Interstate Highway 35E, respectively. The Dallas-Fort Worth region is a rapidly growing regional economic center on the verge of becoming a global city. The region already serves as a center for energy and financial accounting industries. Like Los Angeles, Dallas has rapidly expanded its transit facilities through investment in its rail transit network. Unlike Los Angeles, however, Dallas did not have a strong history of transit service. Yet it has been successful in continuing to expand its initial investment in rail transit despite uneven geographical support for these expansions. A broad coalition of interests has stuck with the project despite some struggles to advance projects quickly. The Dallas area transit agencies have been proactive in seeking evidence of the economic benefits of transit investment, primarily through a partnership with the University of North Texas. Of our three case studies, Dallas has most directly pursued strategies to maximize the job growth impacts of transit. The continually increasing congestion in the Dallas area makes it a prime candidate to experience agglomeration benefits from transit investment, due to large gains in accessibility to labor markets that could result from improved transit service. However, empirical evidence that this has resulted from the 1990s investment in the DART light rail system is limited. Examination of time-series employment data from 2002 to 2008 shows increases in employment and resident worker population densities near the northern portion of each corridor, and decreases in employment and resident worker population densities in the downtown area. Again, it is not clear if these increases on the northern portions of the corridors are direct results of transit investment, or part of a broader trend. The data also do not indicate an increased presence of jobs in industries prone to agglomeration near the corridor over the period. Additionally, since the 1996 opening of the DART light rail system, there do not appear to have been any corresponding changes in zoning laws to encourage or allow increased densification along the corridor. As seen in Salt Lake City, zoning regulations along the DART light rail corridors do not differ substantially from those outside the corridors. The Dallas case, as described by our discussions with planners and professional developers, is somewhat similar to the Salt Lake City case in a number of ways. Developers have been slow to embrace transit-oriented development principles in the outlying areas, though there are notable exceptions, such as Mockingbird Station and downtown Plano. Parking and infrastructure constraints have led to a slower pace of agglomeration in the downtown area than many participants would like to see. Unlike the Salt Lake City case, Dallas does not have typical planning regulatory barriers to address in the downtown area. Instead they rely heavily on flexible negotiations for each project in a process of creating Planned Development Districts. These overlay districts allow developers to set the parameters of development. Yet, like the Salt Lake City case, downtown Dallas is constrained by parking and infrastructure limitations. Addressing these is much trickier than typical planning regulations like zoning or building height/bulk.

83 Current state of the transit system The Dallas-Fort Worth region is served by two rail transit systems and a variety of bus and other transit services. DART operates the light rail system, and jointly (with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority) runs the area’s commuter rail service, the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). The DART light rail system consists of three color-coded lines totaling 55 stations and about 48 miles of track. The TRE system adds another 10 stations and 34 miles. DART light rail serves over 64,000 passengers each weekday, while TRE serves nearly 10,000 (29). The DART system also includes bus service of 674 vehicles serving 146,000 weekday boardings. DART light rail is operated with modern light rail vehicles called Super Light Rail Vehicles, featuring level boarding and increased passenger capacity (30). DART light rail headways average about 15 minutes, systemwide, but the Red Line and Blue Line have supplemental Orange Line service that increases frequency during peak hours to about 7 minutes. Twenty of the 35 stations along DART’s Red and Blue lines have free parking available. Most of these spaces are at stations towards the ends of the lines, rather than in central Dallas. The eight stations between the northern split of the Red and Blue lines at Mockingbird Station and the southern split at the 8th Economic development and related policies and Corinth Station offer no free parking. The northern terminus of the Red Line in Plano has the most spaces, with just over 2000, and several of the other stations along the Red Line north of Mockingbird Station have among the highest number of free parking spaces (31). The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is the regional body that oversees economic development and transportation infrastructure planning for the Dallas-Fort Worth region. A representative of NCTCOG stated that the organization does not focus on specific industrial clusters, but rather regional growth as a whole. Furthermore, there is no region-wide effort to direct development of clusters to distinct parts of the region in an effort to maximize the productivity gains of clustering (DFW Interviewee F, personal communication,12- 16-2010). DART and Dallas-area lawmakers have been interested in the development impacts of DART rail projects from the early stages, though real estate developers have embraced the potential for transit to help their business in the last decade or so (32). One recent study estimated the "value of projects attributable to the presence of a DART rail station since 1999" at $4.26 billion. These properties generate considerable revenues for the member cities and states, both in property taxes (estimated at about $78 million annually) and sales taxes ($42 million annually) (33). The fact that these studies were commissioned by DART indicates that economic development and transit-oriented development are two key goals of their overall transit policy. A more recent transit environmental impact study conducted by DART planners assessed different build alternatives in the downtown Dallas area. Though the study focused on the largest employment center in the metropolitan region, little mention was made of the potential employment impacts of transit investment. Instead, the focus was on transit-oriented development impacts and attracting ridership to the system (34).

84 Current context – employment, transportation, and land use Accessibility/congestion In 2007, annual delay per peak traveler in the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metro area was 53 hours, which is 29% higher than the average for all 90 urban areas in TTI's 2009 Urban Mobility Report. Compared with peer metro areas, Dallas-Fort Worth's annual delay is 4% higher than the average for very large urban areas. Between 1997 and 2007, congestion in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has increased approximately 56%. Over this same period, the average congestion in very large urban areas and all urban areas contained in the TTI report increased by 19% and 14%, respectively (13). With increased congestion, the benefits of fixed-guideway transit are enhanced with respect to mobility and accessibility improvements to dense urban centers. Transit, in this case, may allow increased densification and industry agglomeration in highly congested urban centers.

85 FIGURE 19 2002 to 2008 DART light rail corridor change in workers at place of work by Census block group. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data). Dallas Lovell ll ll Field Airporti l ir rti li l ir rt ir rt DALLAS COUNTY COLLIN COUNTYI I I 20 miles 4 I-35E SH 114 I-30 US 80I-30SH 12 I-35E I-635 I-35E US 75 I-635 I-35E SH 183 SH 161 I-30 I-635 US 175 I-35E I-20SH 408 I-45 US 67 US 175 I-20 I-35E I-20 SH 190 SH 190 I-75 DALLAS MESQUITEIII BALCH SPRINGS I I I MURPHY CARROLLTON HEBRON COCKRELL HILL I I I FARMERS BRANCH HIGHLAND PARKI I I UNIVERSITY PARKI I I I I I ADDISONIII RICHARDSONIII GARLAND PLANO PARKERChange in Employment per Sq. Mile 02-08 LEHD data by Census Block Group 2,000 and above 500 to 2,000 100 to 500 0 to 100 -500 to 0 -500 and below Existing DART Rail System New Light Rail Line TRE Commuter Rail Line Original Light Rail Lines I To Ft Worth t rt t rt t rt

86 FIGURE 20 2002 to 2008 DART light rail corridor change in workers at place of home by Census block group. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data). DALLAS COUNTY COLLIN COUNTYI I I Dallas Lovell lll vl Field Airporti l iiel ir rtii l ir rti l il ir rt 0 2 4 miles I-35E SH 114 I-30 US 80I-30SH 12 I-35E I-635 I-35E SH 183 US 75 I-635 I-35ESH 161 I-30 I-635 US 175 I-35E I-20SH 408 SH 190 I-45 US 67 US 175 I-20 I-35E I-20 SH 190 I-75 DALLAS MESQUITEIII BALCH SPRINGS I I I MURPHY CARROLLTON HEBRON COCKRELL HILL I I I FARMERS BRANCH HIGHLAND PARKI I I UNIVERSITY PARKI I I I I I ADDISONIII RICHARDSONIII GARLAND PLANO PARKERChange in Resident Workers per Sq. Mile 02-08 LEHD data by Census Block Group 1,000 and above 500 to 1,000 250 to 500 0 to 250 -250 to 0 -250 and below Existing DART Rail System New Light Rail Line TRE Commuter Rail Line Original Light Rail Lines I To Ft Worth t rt t rt t rt

87 Employment and industry characteristics As illustrated by Figure 19 and Figure 20 above, both employment and resident worker population became denser between 2002 and 2008 along the light rail corridor in downtown Dallas. Employment density continues to increase north from downtown Dallas along US 75 until just south of I-635. Resident worker densification is seen along the light rail corridor along US 75 north of I-635 to Plano. The area surrounding the north terminus of each line also experienced employment and resident worker densification. Despite these signs of densification, much of the central Dallas area experienced decreases in employment and resident worker density. At the regional level, Addison and the areas east and west of Plano and along SH 190 near Plano experienced the highest increases in employment, which is likely independent of light rail. In terms of resident workers, Dallas County north of the University Park area and the southern portion of Collin County had significant overall increases in resident worker density. Figure 21 shows the distribution of employment (by workplace) in 2002 and 2008 for Dallas County and Collin County and for areas surrounding transit stops along the study corridor.

88 FIGURE 21 Dallas area and corridor employment by sector. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) Out of 1.8 million total employees in Dallas and Collin Counties in 2008, around 290,000 were located along the corridor. Employment in the two counties is largely service-based, with the business and consumer service sectors each comprising more than 30% of the total. The manufacturing and construction sectors are also sizable, together comprising about 15% of jobs. Additional key sectors in the Dallas area include high-technology industries, such as information technology, defense, life sciences, and semiconductors, as well as logistics and healthcare (35). Employment along the corridor is concentrated in business services and public administration to a larger extent than total area employment. Figure 22 shows the percentage change in employment in Dallas County and Collin County and along the corridor between 2002 and 2008.

89 FIGURE 22 Change in Dallas area and corridor employment by sector, 2002 to 2008. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) Growth in the corridor is higher than average for agriculture, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, real estate, and some public/social services. There has also been growth in manufacturing along the corridor, but a decrease in manufacturing jobs in Dallas County and Collin County overall. The loss of jobs in information services has been smaller in the corridor than for the two counties overall. Some of this is consistent with increased development (construction, transportation, and real estate), but are not exactly the typical sectors we think would benefit from urban agglomeration economies, with the possible exception of information services. Figure 23 shows the composition of new jobs between 2002 and 2008, along the corridor and for Dallas County and Collin County.

90 FIGURE 23 Dallas area and near corridor job growth by sector, 2002 to 2008. (Source: US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment Data) More than 70% of the additional jobs in the corridor are in the public services sector (public administration, health, and education services). Slightly more than 15% of job growth occurred in business services (financial, information, management, etc.). Over the same period, overall job growth for Dallas County and Collin County was driven by growth in business services. These patterns do not seem to indicate agglomeration-driven densification as a result of the two original DART light rail lines, as the type of activities we would normally think would benefit from access to transit stations would be sectors that require access to a highly-skilled and specialized work force. Two planners we spoke with pointed out that Dallas has been a leader in attracting new and existing financial, insurance and real estate firms to open or expand in the region (DFW Interviewee D, personal communication, 02-17-2011; DFW Interviewee B, personal communication, 02-28-2011). Corporate relocations are one common project type, whether its headquarters or back office facilities. These types of projects are typically focused on existing office inventory, and either moving into the city or moving from one office building to another. In some cases, perhaps as many as 30-40% of the office related projects that the city works on in the downtown area, access to transit is one factor among many in the decision to locate. Rail access to labor force is often a primary consideration for these types of projects. Companies use detailed quantitative modeling to determine labor market access, which includes accessibility measures like journey to work. Most of the development changes in downtown Dallas around transit stations have been conversions from Class B and C office space into residential uses, according to interview sources. These haven't been new developments, but changes in the use of existing buildings. Dallas has an oversupply of large office towers, and one City of Dallas planner sees the primary

91 development objectives as infill, with smaller projects of 3-8 stories with a mix of uses. The City of Dallas is concerned with the creation of an urban fabric, rather than an abstract increase in density. To ensure consistency among the developments, the City of Dallas plans to initiate a design peer review committee to oversee project proposals in the downtown area. It is too difficult to take away the unlimited development potential from landowners in downtown, so design review is the best alternative to ensuring the type of development the city would like to see, according to one expert (DFW Interviewee D, personal communication, 02-17-2011). Zoning regulations In order to regulate development, Dallas zoning code specifies setbacks, density, building height, lot coverage, and primary use for each zoning designation. Residential zoning categories include Single Family, Duplex/Townhouse, and Clustered Housing/Multi-family. Non- residential categories include Office, Retail, Commercial/Industrial, Central Area, Mixed Use, Multiple Commercial, and Parking (15). In the downtown area, Dallas’s zoning regulations are superseded by Planned Development Districts. These districts allow developers to negotiate the form-based requirements of their projects on a case-by-case basis in partnership with the City of Dallas (DFW Interviewee D, personal communication, 2-17-2011). PDDs provide much more flexibility and effectively eliminate zoning as a regulatory barrier to development. Other barriers, in particular parking and municipal infrastructure, were still cited as significant even in areas where PDDs were in use. Using GIS zoning files from the City of Dallas and the City of Plano, we aggregated zoning designations into the nine broader categories shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30. These categories, defined below, are grouped around zoning characteristics that are important to development along the transit corridor. GIS zoning data was unavailable for Garland and Richardson, and as a result the figures do not include zoning parcels within those jurisdictions. • Downtown: Central Area • Commercial: includes Commercial Service, Multiple Commercial, General Office, Office District, Limited Office, Mid-Range Office, Neighborhood Office, Neighborhood Service, Community Retail, Regional Retail, and General Retail • Industrial: includes Industrial Manufacturing, Industrial Research, and Light Industrial • Planned Development: Planned Development District • Mixed Use: Mixed Use • Single-family Residential: includes Single-family Residential, Duplex, Townhouse • Multi-family Residential: includes Multi-family, Clustered Housing • Other: Conservation District • Parking: Parking

92 FIGURE 24 2011 DART corridor zoning, south of Mockingbird Station. (Source: City of Dallas Zoning GIS data) 0 Dallas Love Field Airport miles 1 2 I-30 I-30 I-35E I-45 I-35E US 67 I-35E DALLAS HIGHLAND PARKI I I Dallas Area Zoning Districts Dow ntow n Commercial Industrial Planned Development Mixed Use Single-family Residential Multi-family Residentail Other Parking I

93 FIGURE 25 2010/2011 DART corridor zoning, north of Mockingbird Station. (Source: City of Dallas and City of Plano Zoning GIS data) Land use GIS files obtained from NCTCOG were used to create the maps below. NCTCOG has 25 land use designations, which we then aggregated into the 8 broader categories miles 0 1 2 DALLAS COUNTY COLLIN COUNTYI I I SH 190 US 75 SH 190 I-635 GARLAND MURPHY HIGHLAND PARKI I I UNIVERSITY PARKI I I I I I RICHARDSONIII Dallas Area Zoning Districts Dow ntow n Commercial Industrial Planned Development Mixed Use Single-family Residential Multi-family Residentail Other Parking

94 seen in Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28 below. These categories, defined below, are grouped similarly to those mapped for Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. • Commercial: includes Office, Retail, Hotel/Motel, Transportation, and Utilities • Single-family Residential: includes Single Family and Mobile Home • Multi-family Residential: includes Multi-family • Institutional: includes Group Quarters, Institutional, Airport, Runway, and Large Stadium • Public Lands & Open Spaces: includes Parks/Recreation, Landfill, Flood Control, Vacant, and Water • Industrial: includes Industrial • Parking: includes Parking Garage, Parking CBD, and Expanded Parking • Other: includes Roadway and Under Construction

95 FIGURE 26 2005 DART corridor land use, south of Mockingbird Station. (Source: NCTCOG GIS Land Use Data) 0 Dallas Love Field Airport miles 1 2 I-30 I-30 I-35E I-45 US 67 I-35E I-35E DALLAS HIGHLAND PARKI I I 2005 Dallas Land Use Commercial Industrial Institutional Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Public Lands & Open Spaces Other Parking I

96 FIGURE 27 2005 DART corridor land use, north of Mockingbird Station. (Source: NCTCOG GIS Land Use Data) 0 miles 1 2 DALLAS COUNTY COLLIN COUNTYI I I SH 190 US 75 SH 190 I-635 GARLAND MURPHY HIGHLAND PARKI I I UNIVERSITY PARKI I I I I I RICHARDSONIII 2005 Dallas Land Use Commercial Industrial Institutional Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Public Lands & Open Spaces Other Parking

97 FIGURE 28 2005 DART corridor land use, downtown Dallas. (Source: NCTCOG GIS Land Use Data) 0 0.25 0.5 miles 2005 Dallas Land Use Commercial Industrial Institutional Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Public Lands & Open Spaces Other Parking

98 Going south from its northern terminus, the DART rail line is surrounded primarily by retail and institutional development through Plano; and office, industrial, and retail development in Richardson. Continuing further south, the line passes through institutional, office, retail, and multi-family residential areas to the Mockingbird Station in the University Park area. Here, the line that splits off to the northeast; and passes first through single and multi-family residential, then industrial, and finally terminates in Garland near institutional and industrial areas. Continuing south from the split at Mockingbird Station, the DART rail line passes through office, retail, and institutional areas through downtown. As the line continues southwest, it passes through institutional, then industrial areas, until the split at the 8th and Corinth Station. As seen in Figure 28, downtown Dallas is dominated by commercial land uses, while the area just north of downtown contains a lot of multi-family residential development, and the area just south of downtown contains significant industrial development. The southeast leg runs primarily through single-family residential areas, however, institutional and retail areas are scattered along the transit corridor near stations. Similarly, the southwest leg passes through single-family residential development with some industrial, retail, and institutional development along the line, and terminates at the W. Illinois Ave Station, surrounded by a large area of industrial use. The availability of parking may affect densification along the DART corridor. Figure 29 below shows land use zones in downtown Dallas designated solely for parking. Along the rest of the corridor and throughout the Dallas area, there are very few other parking zones, most of which are parking areas adjacent to or near large event venues (Expanded Parking). Downtown Dallas has an overabundance of parking, yet many perceive an undersupply of parking located in high-demand areas. Much of the parking supply is on the periphery of downtown or far from the high intensity uses. The City of Dallas controls only a small fraction of the parking supply, so the City plans to create a parking management collaboration among private and public owners. This is an attempt to address both the perceived lack of parking and the oversupply in underdeveloped areas near downtown. This is part of the overall challenge Dallas faces in a) having a large downtown area and b) creating an attractive 24-hour downtown community. The latter is something Dallas is trying hard to achieve (DFW Interviewee D, personal communication, 02- 17-2011).

99 FIGURE 29 2005 Downtown Dallas parking land use zones. (Source: NCTCOG GIS Land Use Data) 0 0.25 0.5 miles 2005 Parking Land Use Zones Expanded Parking Parking CBD Parking Garage

Next: 7. Conclusions »
Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects Get This Book
×
 Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Web-Only Document 56: Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects explores development of a method for transit agencies to assess whether and under what circumstances transit investments have economic benefits that are in addition to land development stimulated by travel time savings.

As part of the project a spreadsheet tool was developed that may be used to help estimate the agglomeration-related economic benefits of rail investments in the form of new systems or additions to existing systems.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!