Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide (2007)

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.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-1 Land Development Guidelines CHAPTER 6. LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION The growth and development of urban areas reflects the impacts of transportation technology. Suburban railroads, city and interurban electric railways, rapid transit, and roadways have continually influenced where people and businesses locate. These impacts have been well documented in the past. BRT has emerged in recent years as a relatively new rapid transit mode. Similar to LRT in many aspects, it also has begun to impact the areas it serves. There is growing documentation of its positive development effects; however, given the newness of most BRT systems, more information is needed regarding when, where, and why these effects occur over time and how communities can work with transit agencies and developers to achieve BRT transit-oriented development (TOD). The “Experience and Research” section documents available cost, impact, and effectiveness data for BRT land development. The “TOD Programs” section contains overviews of selected agencies’ TOD incentives and programs and information from case studies of Boston and Ottawa. The case studies address the land development impacts of BRT from the perspective of community efforts to link land development with proximate transit service. The “Developer Perceptions” section presents findings from surveys of developers in Boston and Ottawa. The surveys focused on the characteristics of BRT that are likely to impact development decisions. It is believed that such formal surveys have not been conducted elsewhere. The “Guidelines” section synthesizes and interprets information from the previous sections and from other research on the land development impacts of transit investments related to BRT. The guidelines are intended to help public agencies (i.e., transit agencies, local government agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations) assess the potential land development benefits of BRT system development by identifying data sources, identifying analysis tools, and providing guidance on conducting future surveys of the various stakeholders in the development process. EXPERIENCE AND RESEARCH Overview of Transit-Oriented Development TOD is defined by Caltrans as follows: “TOD is a strategy that has broad potential in both large urban and small communities using bus or rail transit systems. It focuses compact growth around transit stops, thereby capitalizing on transit investments by bringing potential riders closer to transit facilities and increasing ridership. TOD can also produce a variety of other local and regional benefits by encouraging walkable compact and infill development. Transit agencies often play an important role in TOD. Local governments can play a significant role in promoting TOD through plans, policies, zoning provisions, and incentives for supportive densities [and] designs, along with a mix of land uses. There is limited—but growing— documentation of BRT’s land development impacts. Developers’ perceptions of BRT have not been formally surveyed before. The guidelines in this chapter address circumstances under which can BRT foster transit- oriented development.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-2 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide “For development to be transit-oriented, it needs to be more than just adjacent to transit. Development generally needs to be shaped by transit in terms of parking, density, and/or building orientation in comparison to conventional development for it to be considered transit-oriented. A successful TOD will reinforce both the community and the transit system.” (1) TCRP Report 102 (2) contains other definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the key characteristic of TOD is that it is the formal linking of land development opportunities and activities with the station sites of premium transit services to encourage a desirable form of development. TOD Measures NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 (3) summarizes surveys of public agencies and transportation professionals across the United States to identify indicators that can and/or should be used to quantify the land development impacts of TOD. The research evaluated 56 categorized measures in terms of each measure’s usefulness, the level of effort required to obtain its data, and how frequently it should be monitored. The indicators recommended as “the foundation for [a TOD] evaluation program” are the following: • Transit ridership • Density (population/housing) • Quality of streetscape design • Quantity of mixed-use structures • Pedestrian activity/pedestrian safety • Increase in property value/tax revenue • Public perception (resident and merchant surveys) • Mode connections at the transit station • Parking configuration (for commuters, for residents, and shared) NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 notes that, “while data collection is relatively easy for some of these indicators, it is more difficult for some of the others; a strategy suggested in the [research] is setting aside government funds to monitor TOD progress. For virtually every indicator, with a few exceptions, data collection needs to occur only yearly or less frequently.” (3) Quantifying TOD Impacts In describing the measured benefits of TOD, TCRP Report 102 (2) says “...relatively few serious studies have been carried out that assign benefits to TOD in any quantitative sense,” the exceptions being studies of ridership increases and property gains. The report also notes that “...quite a few of the benefits of TOD are associated with any form of compact, mixed-use development.” Examples of recent studies quantifying the land value benefits of rail transit investments are set forth in Exhibit 6-1. Proximity to rail and LRT stations generally increases land values. However, comparable studies of BRT are limited—largely because of the relative newness of the concept. Several key indicators can be used to quantify and monitor land development activity along transit routes.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-3 Land Development Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-1 Land Value Results of Selected Price Model Studies Author(s) Data Source Selected Results Heavy Rail Rapid Transit Cervero and Duncan, 2002b 3,802 sales of properties in multi-family housing in Los Angeles in 2000 No evidence of appreciable effects Lewis- Workman and Brod, 1997 All recorded single family property sales (263) within 1.61 km of BART’s Pleasant Hill station from the 1984-1996 period Premium of $1,578 for every 0.03 km closer to BART station Benjamin and Sirmans, 1996 250 residential apartment rental prices in Washington during 1992 Premium of 2.4% to 2.6% for every 0.16 km closer to Metro station Landis et al., 1995 2,359 sales of single-family homes in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties during 1990 Premium of $100-$200 per 0.1 km closer to the station McDonald and Osuji, 1995 79 blocks in Chicago during 1980 and 1990 Premium of 17% for location within 0.5 mile of a station Smith, 1978 300 new home sales in Chicago for 1971 Premium of $450 for every 0.8 km closer to rail transit station Damm et al., 1980 286 single-family and 771 multi-family housing sales from 1969 to 1976 in Washington, D.C. Dummy variables indicating location within 0.16 km of a station: elasticities of -0.19 for multi-family housing and between -0.06 to -0.13 for single-family housing sales Light Rail Transit/Trolley Service Dueker and Bianco, 1999 Population Census’ median house value in Portland between 1980 and 1990 Premium of $2,300 for properties within 0.06 km of a MAX station Lewis- Workman and Brod, 1997 Cadastral information for nearly all properties (4,170) within 1.6 km of three MAX stations in Portland Premium of $75 per 0.03 km closer to the station Forrest et al., 1995 795 house sales in Manchester (UK) during 1990 Premium ranging from 2.1% to 8.1% depending on distance to station Cervero and Duncan, 2002c 1,495 sales of properties in multi-family housing in San Diego in 2000 Premium for multi-family units ranging from 2% to 6% Landis et al., 1995 134 single-family sales in San Diego during 1990 Premium of $272 for every 0.1 km closer to station Dabinett, 1998 Sheffeld (UK) Supertram No evidence of appreciable effects Al-Mosaind et al., 1993 235 single-family home sales in Portland during 1988 Premium of $663 per 0.03 km closer to station NOTE: Results apply to area and properties studied only. Refer to each source study for details. SOURCE: The Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System (4) Examples of land development benefits of existing BRT systems are given in Exhibit 6-2. BRT systems—especially busways—have created land development benefits.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-4 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 6-2 Reported Land Development Benefits of BRT BRT System Land Development Benefits Adelaide Guided Busway Tea Tree Gully area is becoming urban village. Bogotá TransMilenio For every 5 minutes of additional walking time to a BRT station, the rental price of a property decreases between 6.8% and 9.3% after controlling for structural characteristics and neighborhood attributes Boston Silver Line (rebuilt Washington Street) $700+ million in new investment within two to three blocks of BRT line Brisbane South East Busway Up to 20% gain in property values near busway. Property values in areas within 6 miles of station grew two to three times faster than those at greater distances. Higher increase in median home values around busway than other suburban areas. Ottawa Transitway System $1 billion (Canadian) in new construction at Transitway Stations. Pittsburgh East Busway 59 new developments within 1,500 feet of stations. $302 million in land development benefits of which $275 million was new construction. 80% clustered at stations. Pittsburgh West Busway Land development focused on six park-and-ride lots. SOURCE: The Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System (4) and TCRP Report 90 (5) Findings of other studies are as follows: • The Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System (4) reports that, for every 5 minutes of additional walking time to a BRT station in Bogotá, the rental price of a property decreases between 6.8% and 9.3% after controlling for structural characteristics and neighborhood attributes. • Boston’s Silver Line operating on rebuilt Washington Street between downtown Boston and Dudley Square has generated more than $700 million in new investment within a few blocks. • Brisbane’s South East Busway has reported a 20% gain in property values near the busway. There has been a greater increase in home values along the busway as compared with other suburban areas. • Ottawa’s Transitway system has generated more than $1 billion (Canadian) dollars in new investment along the Transitway. The municipality’s land use policy requires major activity centers to locate near the Transitway and has been supportive of TOD. The St. Laurent Centre, which is connected to the Transitway by weather-protected, grade- separated walks, is one of Canada’s most productive shopping centers. About one-third of customers arrive via the Transitway. Concurrent with opening the St. Laurent Transitway station in 1987, the Centre completed a major expansion that included 80 additional stores. • Pittsburgh’s East Busway, which shares a corridor with a railroad, generated more than $302 million in new development between 1983 and 2000. By 2007, more than $500 million of new investment has been reported. About 80% is clustered at stations. One-third of the new development represents an extension of the CBD. The extent to which this development would have occurred without the busway was not reported by PAT.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-5 Land Development Guidelines Achieving TOD with BRT Achieving TOD at BRT stations requires (1) providing the right mix, design, and density of activities; (2) recognizing the development potential associated with BRT; and (3) acknowledging that land development impacts may not be realized in the near term. An important insight can be found in studying the factors that researchers have identified as being characteristics of a successful TOD project. NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 (3) cites a 2001 study by Nelson, Niles, and Hibshoosh (6) that identifies 16 factors in successful TOD projects. These factors are listed in Exhibit 6-3. Of the 16 factors, transit technology and resident reactions are the only factors where mode-specific differences might be significant, and the latter is highly likely to reflect the perceived “rail bias.” EXHIBIT 6-3 Factors Determining the Success of TOD Number and Siting of TODs Station Area Parking Regional Marketing Structure Resident Reactions Transit Quality Employment and Housing Density Consumer Activity Patterns Housing Type Preference/Life Stage Transit Technology Commercial Mix Travel Behavior/Trip Chaining Self-Selection in Residential Choice Street Pattern Retail Siting Criteria Zoning Flexibility/ Land Assembly Government Policies SOURCE: A New Planning Template for Transit-Oriented Development (6) as reproduced in NCHRP Research Results Digest (3) Factors for TOD success added by other researchers include the following: • The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) lists employment density and clustering, demographic mix (captive riders), transit pricing and rider subsidies, parking pricing, tolls, the quality of transit service, the effectiveness of transit marketing, walkability, and street design. VTPI cites previous research in concluding that “TOD generally requires at least six residential units per acre in residential areas and 25 employees per acre in commercial centers, and about twice that for premium quality transit, such as rail service.... These densities create adequate transit ridership to justify frequent service....” (7) • The Urban Land Institute identifies 10 principles for TOD success (8): > Make It Better with a Vision > Apply the Power of Partnerships > Think Development When Thinking about Transit > Get the Parking Right > Build a Place, Not a Project > Make Retail Development Market-Driven, Not Transit-Driven > Mix Uses, but Not Necessarily in the Same Place > Make Buses a Great Idea > Encourage Every Price Point to Live around Transit > Engage Corporate Attention The Urban Land Institute has published 10 principles for successful TOD.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-6 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide The various factors do not explicitly depend on the mode of the premium service. They depend instead on service design decisions and external factors (such as market conditions, the specifics of land development regulations, and site design). Citizens, transportation professionals, and decision-makers traditionally have perceived rail service as more attractive than bus service. The rail bias underlying ridership estimates reflects the sense of permanence associated with rail infrastructure, the technology, and the level of investment. It also may be perceived when comparing the land development effects of BRT and rail service. However, ridership experience with BRT indicates that similar bias considerations apply to BRT in terms of passenger attraction. (See Chapter 3 for more information.) Similarly, reported development effects indicate that BRT can influence land development. In Chapter 2 of CBRT (9), the authors state that “...rapid bus technologies are so new that there is little evidence about their attractiveness for development.” Research organizations such as the Urban Land Institute and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development have not conducted BRT-specific studies to date. These organizations have assembled much data on TOD in general, however. The question is whether general TOD data and/or TOD data for rail and regular bus service can be applied to BRT. None of the previous research reviewed distinguishes the land development impacts of BRT from the impacts of high-quality transit service in general or from the impacts of rail service. For example: As stated in Chapter 2 of The New Transit Town (10), “The more that BRT can approach [the] features of rail in its design ... the more it will succeed in providing an attractive development climate.” In many cases, the type of transit linked to TOD is described in the research with a generic phrase such as “premium service” or “rapid service,” which conveys that a high- quality transit service is offered but is non-specific as to the mode. In cases where a modal distinction is present, it typically takes the form of an assumption that a rail station is being assessed, without reference to explicit service characteristics. Thus, research to date does not provide evidence that BRT and rail services with similar service characteristics have different land development impacts. In conclusion, BRT is a “premium transit” or “rapid transit” service. BRT can physically operate in any corridor that rail transit can; BRT service can be provided at levels comparable to rail service (e.g., headways and vehicle features); development around BRT stations can achieve the “success” characteristics noted above; and BRT service can be attractive to riders. It is therefore reasonable to expect that BRT could achieve land development effects similar to rail-based TOD where the service structure is similar, and that it is not necessary to distinguish BRT from LRT or other rail modes for the purposes of assessing land development impacts. TOD PROGRAMS This section overviews the TOD program requirements and incentives of Boston, Pittsburgh, and Ottawa. The overview illustrates how BRT is being incorporated into selected TOD programs. Program information was obtained through surveys (Boston and Ottawa) and review of planning documents and codes. Full-featured BRT can be similar to rail transit in terms of its impacts on land development.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-7 Land Development Guidelines Boston Overview of TOD Program The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) and State of Massachusetts define TOD as mixed-use, higher-density, pedestrian-oriented development located within 0.5 mile of a transit station and designed to encourage transit use, walking, and other alternative modes of transportation. While densities, intensities, and types of uses will vary depending upon the location and type of transit service, TOD shall generally have the following characteristics: • A mix of uses • Moderate to high density • Pedestrian orientation • Connectivity between uses and transit station • Reduced parking • Attractive streetscapes and urban design The City of Boston does not have a specific definition for TOD or an explicit program to promote TOD beyond efforts on surplus City property. However, it recognizes that Boston’s long transit history and dense development pattern have made TOD the norm. MBTA’s TOD program encourages development of the type described above. However, the program is targeted toward the development of surplus property owned by MBTA in coordination with local jurisdictions. MBTA does not have surplus property in the Silver Line BRT corridor and, therefore, has not been active as a developer of TOD projects in the corridor. The City and MBTA work together on TOD projects when they occur within the city limits, but they both acknowledge that TOD has become the common practice in the City of Boston and several of the surrounding communities. TCRP Report 102 (2) has a chapter that looks extensively at the history of TOD in Boston and addresses some of these issues in greater detail than is possible for this report. Requirements and Incentives Because TOD is the traditional form of development in Boston and does not take place within narrowly defined programs, MBTA and the City place few, if any, requirements upon TOD projects. Given the few restrictions placed on TOD projects by MBTA and the City, there are currently few, if any incentives offered directly by either MBTA or the City for TOD per se. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) is the City’s planning and development arm and provides a variety of development incentives to projects in the City. The assistance offered includes site acquisition, neighborhood visioning, grants, low-interest loans, joint development opportunities, multi-agency coordination, and streetscape improvements. While the BRA encourages developers to make their projects pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use in character, and with minimized parking, there is no qualifying process for this assistance that depends upon meeting specific design standards. BRA staff mentioned that developers are very receptive to this encouragement because they have seen that it is the traditional pattern of development and they have seen it work throughout the City. MBTA’s TOD program is focused on City/MBTA surplus property.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-8 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Impacts BRA noted that $700 million of development occurred in a 1.5-mile stretch of the Washington Street corridor in the same time period as the Silver Line was being implemented. Public investment in the corridor was clearly an impetus for development, but it is difficult to determine how influential the Silver Line operation has been relative to other investments such as roadway resurfacing and streetscaping. While the corridor was previously served by the #49 bus line, it is difficult to discern the impact of the new development on ridership as opposed to the Silver Line’s service changes. Planning and implementation of the Silver Line in the South Boston Waterfront has also occurred in tandem with a boom in development, beginning the transformation of acres of parking lots to what will become a very dense mix of offices, housing, and retail. Even more than on Washington Street, this boom has followed a wide array of public investment, including the construction of a new Federal courthouse and a convention center. Creating an improved transportation link from this area to the downtown has clearly been a key factor and one reason for Silver Line Phase 2 development. There had been no previous service along this portion of the line, so any ridership developed is a result of new development. Throughout the system, MBTA has seen a demand for increased housing opportunities adjacent to transit stations, and much of the development in the Washington Street corridor has been residential with ground floor commercial. Pittsburgh Overview of TOD Program The City of Pittsburgh defines TOD projects as “developments that focus on areas in which stations are located, through the adoption of public programs and regulations by local governments that permit an intensively built mix of land uses and activities around the station.” Pittsburgh’s busway stations are considered Major Transit Facilities. A Major Transit Facility is defined as “a platform or waiting area adjacent to a public mass transit system which utilizes an exclusive right-of-way.” Requirements and Incentives In certain zoning districts, proximity to a Major Transit Facility allows developers to take advantage of increased development densities. These zoning districts are defined by the City as follows: • The Urban Neighborhood Commercial (UNC) District is intended to serve a broader market than the immediate neighborhood; allow a range of development while controlling impacts on the neighborhood adjacent to them; ensure that new developments fit within existing development patterns; and reinforce qualities of the built environment, such as the continuity of storefronts and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes. • The Highway Commercial (HC) District is intended to accommodate auto- oriented commercial activities and uses for which automobile travel is generally required (such as automobile dealerships, fast food restaurants, and appliance stores); improve the design quality of auto-oriented development (making such areas more attractive components of the city); provide space for large-scale regional retail stores that require large lots, broadly defined market areas, and high sales volumes and that tend to be incompatible with locations adjoining smaller neighborhoods; provide Boston has realized $700 million in development along its Washington Street Silver Line alignment.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-9 Land Development Guidelines space for commercial uses that would create conflicts with residential uses or other less intensive types of land uses; and maintain the efficiency of the City’s existing and planned traffic network. • The Urban Industrial (UI) District is intended to allow mid-sized to large industries with lower external impacts on surrounding properties and districts; provide a flexible district that addresses the growing need for easily adaptable and flexible spaces (including office parks, incubator spaces, high technology, and service sector industries); allow multi-use buildings that permit assembly, inventory, sales, and business functions within the same space; and encourage adaptive reuse of manufacturing buildings and allow the development of high density multi-unit residential buildings. Exhibit 6-4, Exhibit 6-5, and Exhibit 6-6 show how proximity to a Major Transit Facility is accommodated in the City’s zoning code. As the exhibits show, proximity allows increases in floor area ratio and maximum building height. SOURCE: City of Pittsburgh Zoning Code EXHIBIT 6-4 Site Development Standards for Pittsburgh’s UNC District Pittsburgh’s transit-supportive land development code allows increased densities near “major transit facilities.”

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-10 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: City of Pittsburgh Zoning Code EXHIBIT 6-5 Site Development Standards for Pittsburgh’s HC District SOURCE: City of Pittsburgh Zoning Code EXHIBIT 6-6 Site Development Standards for Pittsburgh’s UI District Ottawa Overview of TOD Program In Ottawa, TOD is development that is focused on Mixed-Use Centers. Mixed- Use Centers are “lands that have been identified as strategic locations on the rapid transit network. These nodes can be defined as ... compact, transit-oriented, [and] pedestrian-friendly areas where the highest concentrations of residential, employment, retail, and other uses in the urban area are located.” The Transitway and the LRT line are not differentiated with respect to the requirements conditioned on the development of Mixed-Use Centers. Several Mixed-Use Centers are identified in the City’s Official Plan. The Official Plan and the Transportation Master Plan include policies that regulate transit-supportive land uses, such as locating Mixed-Use Centers at rapid transit stations, so the City is able to impose requirements on TOD by imposing requirements on Mixed-Use Centers. The requirements are intended to achieve employment targets (e.g., 5,000 jobs) and population targets. Mixed-Use Centers in Ottawa are allowed only along the rapid transit network.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-11 Land Development Guidelines Requirements and Incentives To construct a Mixed-Use Center, developers must complete a Community Design Plan for Council approval. Community Design Plans delineate the boundaries of the Mixed-Use Center and guide development in Mixed-Use Centers by regulating how buildings are oriented to the rapid transit network, parking supply (regulated within 1,300 feet), provision of (informal) park-and-ride lots and passenger drop-off zones, compactness of development (regulated through setbacks and building heights), mix of land uses, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility (including direct pedestrian connections), and proximity of employment uses (within 1,300 feet). New regional shopping centers must be located on the rapid transit network. Additional requirements may include the following: • High-density residential uses should occur close to a BRT station, and medium-density residential uses should occur in locations where it can act as a transition to nearby low-density residential neighborhoods. • Parking requirements may be reduced for developments located within 2,000 feet of a rapid transit (bus or rail) station, after considering factors such as walking distance from the development to the station, the presence and frequency of transit service between the development and the station, and physical barriers in the pedestrian network. • A maximum parking requirement may be implemented for development located within 1,300 feet of a rapid transit station. • “Big box” retail uses are permitted only when located within multi-story buildings oriented to the street, with multiple pedestrian entrances, with storefront display windows, and where at least 80% of parking is located underground or within structures. • Wayfinding signage may be required for the guidance of transit users. The Community Design Plan requirements apply to existing rapid transit lines as well as rapid transit lines and connections that will be constructed over the next 20 years. Although there is no formal TOD incentive program, the City of Ottawa offers the following services and opportunities: • The City provides pre-consultation design assistance where possible. The City encourages all developers to have pre-consultation meetings with City staff. • The Community Design Plan process provides a basis for consistent community visioning. • The City is willing to explore joint development opportunities on City- owned lands. • While Provincial Statutes prohibit waiving municipal charges, permit fees, and inspections fees, there is some provision for Development Charge discounts for projects near transit stations. All residential applicants and developers near transit stations are eligible for these Development Charge discounts. Before 2001, some of the independent municipalities that are now part of the City of Ottawa offered discounted development charges and reduced parking requirements. The City of Ottawa is developing new zoning that, when Ottawa requires Community Design Plans for development around rapid transit stations.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-12 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide implemented in 2006, may include a TOD incentive program. City staff provided the following examples of what the new zoning may allow: • The maximum parking requirement within 1,300 feet of a transit station is 1 parking space per 455 square feet of development. • Office uses of more than 25,000 square feet may have a minimum of 1.8 parking spaces for every 1,075 square feet of gross floor area and a maximum of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. • Uses in core areas (i.e., within 100 feet of a transit station) may be required to share parking spaces. City staff indicated that developer response to the TOD requirements varies. Development of properties owned by the federal government was characterized by a “very positive” response, while some private developers were “less positive.” This variation was borne out in the surveys of developers, as described later in this chapter. DEVELOPER PERCEPTIONS The developer perspective on specific transit service characteristics and components (particularly BRT service characteristics and components) has been addressed to a limited extent in previous research. The research performed for NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 (3) did not survey developers. The survey of developers and lenders performed for TCRP Report 102 (2) focused on the financial aspects of TOD projects. Caltrans reports that, “whether real or perceived, many developers believe there are significant barriers to overcome in trying to secure funding for TODs; these barriers include the belief that mixed-use developments are risky, difficulty in appraising TODs using traditional appraisal methods, and a perceived unwillingness of investors to fund developments in central cities.” A 2005 study conducted by Mejias and Deakin (11) looked at development activity along San Pablo Avenue in Oakland, where the new San Pablo Rapid BRT service runs. This study surveyed 11 developers involved in recent or ongoing residential and mixed-use projects on San Pablo Avenue. A key finding was that developers “...view transit availability as a bonus but not necessarily a major development incentive.” A second finding was that a BRT service distinguished from regular local bus service primarily by increased stop spacing and bus preferential treatments is not adequate to attract developer interest. A third finding was that factors such as unattractive streetscaping, high crime rates, and confusing and inflexible development regulations can deter developers regardless of the quality of the transit service. Not cited was the proximity of BART stations within a mile of San Pablo Avenue and joint development at some of the other train stations. Methodology Special surveys were conducted in Boston and Ottawa to assess the impact of BRT components on land development decisions and perceived differences in BRT and rail transit. Boston was chosen to assess the impact of an arterial street BRT operation (the Silver Line), while Ottawa was chosen to assess the impact of an off- street busway (the Transitway). Transit agency real estate and city/county planning and economic development staff in each city were contacted to review the factors that resulted in added development along the new BRT lines. Selected developers (including a non-profit agency) in Boston and Ottawa who have made development decisions along the BRT lines were interviewed to obtain The City of Ottawa is planning to modify parking space requirements near Transitway stations. A survey of developers along San Pablo Avenue in Oakland reported that increased stop spacing and transit preferential treatments were not enough to attract developer interest.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-13 Land Development Guidelines their insights. Developer contacts were identified from the initial local jurisdiction contacts and, in the case of Ottawa, from station area walking maps such as the one in Exhibit 6-7. For developers, the focus was on the hard or design elements of BRT, including stations, running ways, and vehicles. The questions revolved around the factors that influence why developers might be inclined to locate different types of development (i.e., residential, commercial, or mixed-use) within walking distance of BRT stations in different types of environments (i.e., CBD, central city, or suburban) and different features. SOURCE: OC Transpo EXHIBIT 6-7 Transitway Station Area Map - Blair Station Boston TOD Overview The first phase of Boston’s first BRT project, the Silver Line, opened in July 2002 on Washington Street between the Dudley Square/Roxbury neighborhoods, traveling through the South End and ending at the Downtown Crossing station.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-14 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide The Washington Street corridor was served by the Orange Line—an elevated heavy rail line—until 1987, when the Orange Line was shifted to right-of-way that had been purchased for a highway. Exhibit 6-8 is a map of the MBTA subway system, which includes the Silver Line. SOURCE: MBTA EXHIBIT 6-8 Subway and BRT Map with Silver Line Most of the second phase, from South Station to Logan Airport, opened in December 2004, and the connection to the airport began operation in 2005. A considerable portion of this segment is located underground, and the press release for the opening read, “New Subway Opens in Boston for First Time Since 1918.” (Silver Line schedules are also found under “Subway” on MBTA’s web site.) This phase of the Silver Line was built at the same time as a new federal courthouse and new convention center spurred significant construction in the South Boston Waterfront, which was formerly filled with surface parking lots and port access. Massport, a state-created entity charged with management of the airports, bridges, and port facilities, owns much of the property in this area and has been actively involved in encouraging TOD. A third phase, a bus tunnel, is planned to connect the two initial segments but has encountered challenges from stakeholders along the proposed alignment and the FTA. This connection is important not so much because of the need for trips along the entire length of the corridor but to connect each of the initial phases to all of the existing rail lines to allow for single-transfer trips throughout the entire MBTA system. The parties that provided input to this research included staff from MBTA, the BRA (a division of the City of Boston), Massport, and the Washington Gateway Main Street program, as well as five developers. One of the developers is a non- profit development corporation. Summary of Boston Developer Surveys The Silver Line has clearly played a role in encouraging development along its first two phases, although in each instance the other public investments may have had as much, if not more, influence on the development prospects. All of the

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-15 Land Development Guidelines surveyed developers have seen a benefit in the connections to downtown provided by the Silver Line, and some of their projects have less parking because of the adjacent transit. However, most projects still contain on-site structured parking to meet the needs of tenants. Finally, some developers expressed a preference for rail and had concerns about MBTA’s long-term commitment to the Washington Street portion of the line and its ability to link the two sections to each other and the entire system. Important factors underlying development decisions were proximity to the Silver Line, supportive zoning, land availability and cost, and provisions of real- time passenger information. The reconstruction of Washington Street, including widening sidewalks and installing amenities, was perceived (by some) to be as important in making investment decisions as the transit improvement itself. It is interesting to compare developer interest along the Silver Line with the findings of Mejias and Deakin’s San Pablo Avenue study (11). In Boston, some developers stated that reconstruction of Washington Street as part of Silver Line development was an attractive component of the BRT project. In Oakland, developers thought that the attractiveness of some sections of San Pablo Avenue was “a bonus” while other sections needed to be improved to enhance “development prospects.” Both Boston and Oakland developers shared concerns about the “permanence” of BRT investments. Some Boston developers expressed this concern directly by contrasting BRT with heavy rail (a more costly alternative). Some Oakland developers did not know that the San Pablo Rapid service existed, presumably because it runs in mixed traffic and required relatively little reconstruction of San Pablo Avenue. Ottawa TOD Overview The City of Ottawa is a regional government that, since 2001, includes 11 urban and rural communities and 800,000 residents. The City forecasts that the region’s population will exceed 1 million within the next 20 years. To accommodate this level of growth, City policies include TOD and the Transitway; TOD projects are located at Mixed-Use Centers according to the relevant policy documents and reports. Such a center was depicted in Exhibit 6-7. When supported by an extensive rapid transit network and deployment of transit preferential treatments, the requirements for Mixed-Use Centers further the City’s aim of realizing the highest level of future transit usage that can reasonably be achieved (i.e., a target mode share of 30%). OC Transpo (the Ottawa transit agency) is a part of the City of Ottawa government, so the transit agency and the city government were not surveyed separately. Surveyed staff included current and former staff. City staff answered the survey questions about development activity near the Transitway and provided copies of several documents that describe elements of the TOD program. These documents include the following: • City of Ottawa’s Official Plan (May 2003) • City of Ottawa’s Transportation Master Plan (September 2003) • “Land Use Strategies to Support Increased Transit Ridership - A Guidebook” (prepared for the City by Entra Consultants, March 2003) Factors influencing development along Boston’s Silver Line include supportive zoning, land availability and cost, and a reconstructed streetscape. Developers in Boston and Oakland expressed concerns about the “permanence” of BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-16 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Developer Involvement in Transitway Development The City indicated that developers had the opportunity to be involved in the development of the rapid transit network because the City used a very extensive public involvement process during the Rapid Transit Expansion Study, development of the City’s Transportation Master Plan, and development of the City’s 2020 Growth Management Strategy. The City also regularly has dialogues with the local Homebuilders Association, the local chapter of the Building Owners and Managers Association, and the federal government (which is the largest employer in Ottawa). The level of developer involvement is based primarily on whether a given developer owns property affected by rapid transit network development. Developer involvement is less linked to whether the rapid transit line is a BRT line or an LRT line. City staff indicated that they could not quantify developers’ interest in specific components of BRT (e.g., proximity of station, ridership, quality of pedestrian environment, quality of streetscape/transitway, transit service frequency, and station amenities), but they related the following qualitative observations: • Developer interest in BRT components is site-specific. • The federal government (a major landowner and employer in Ottawa) has always had a high level of interest in the BRT components listed above. Public Works and Government Services Canada, a federal agency, is currently preparing a long-term master plan to develop Tunney’s Pasture (one of the Transitway stations) in accordance with Official Plan objectives to intensify development and increase ridership. • Private developers are less interested if there are significant additional costs associated with the BRT components listed above. Private developers generally contribute their share to the Transitway as a result of legislative requirements. • Developers feel that BRT contributes to the station-area development market. The City does not have trend data to verify this. • Developers endorse proximity to rapid transit when promoting sales and rentals. The City does not know what effect this has on sales and rentals. Summary of Ottawa Developer Surveys The City and developer surveys resulted in the following findings and insights: • The range of responses from developers was wide in terms of positive and negative viewpoints on TOD and rapid transit systems such as BRT. Much concern seemed to spring from frustration with the timetable of transit line construction and the amount of right-of-way that developers are required to dedicate to transit routes (which are not necessarily separate issues.) • LRT and BRT are not significantly different from the perspective of virtually all of the surveyed developers in terms of the modes’ impact on TOD project success. If this is the case generally, then research completed to understand the developer perspective on land development impacts of LRT could be applied to BRT. One developer indicated a preference for BRT, which was surprising given common assumptions about the relative attractiveness of bus and rail modes. LRT and BRT are not significantly different in Ottawa from the perspective of surveyed developers.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-17 Land Development Guidelines • The City’s perspective on developer interest in BRT components is generally supported by the developer surveys. The City’s perspective on developers’ views of LRT vs. BRT also is generally supported by the developer surveys. Nevertheless, a disconnect may exist between the perceptions of the development community, transportation professionals, and several classes of the general public regarding which TOD factors (and BRT components) are important, which are not, and how the factors might be ranked. For example, walking distance to transit is important for public agencies and for people who intend to use transit, but not for developers who believe that their target customers do not intend to use transit and/or believe that walking distance is a very insignificant issue in comparison to other development concerns. These ideas of relative value may originate in inconsistent understanding of what rapid transit hopes to achieve and what it is capable of achieving in a given environment. Caveats The results of the developer survey described in this chapter were based on a small sample size. In addition to the obvious differences between the two cities (e.g., climate and development character) and expected differences between each developer’s business philosophies, Boston and Ottawa have very different transit histories: A new BRT line in Boston complements a mature subway system, while a new LRT line complements an established BRT line in Ottawa. The findings and implications related to TOD influences are likely to reflect these factors. GUIDELINES TOD at BRT stations has the benefits of improving mobility choices, reducing reliance on driving and achieving greater sustainability, and enhancing BRT ridership. Suggested guidelines for planning and assessing land development related to BRT follow. Coordinating BRT with Land Development The following guidelines will help communities, transit agencies, and developers plan and assess the land development opportunities and impacts along BRT lines: • BRT, like rail transit, can improve accessibility and increase passenger capacity in the corridors that it serves. It can help increase CBD intensity and encourage development at major development nodes and in outlying areas. Each of these locations offers promise for transit-related development. BRT junctions with major intersecting bus routes also offer promising locations for TOD. • BRT systems should serve both existing and future markets. Where BRT serves existing markets in built-up areas, the customer base is well- established, but creating new TOD projects may be difficult. Where BRT serves undeveloped areas, it has the opportunity to shape development around it. • For TOD to be successful, there must be a market for TOD. Only where there is a latent demand for development near transit can significant increases in land value be achieved. Thus, not every BRT route or station can attract development. • Land should be available at reasonable cost for the intended uses. The Guide provides several guidelines for planning and assessing the land development impacts of BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-18 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • TOD works best in dynamic markets. Strong markets are particularly important for retail developments. • The BRT route should provide a strong sense of permanence and a clear identity (in addition to faster service) to attract development. Improved (preferably separate) running ways and new urban design features can create a positive climate for investment; a good example of this is the positive development effects of Boston’s Washington Street Silver Line. • The location and design of BRT routes should consider land development opportunities. Vision is important. Urban redevelopment, for example, has been a major consideration underlying Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue Transitway. • Convenient transit passenger access should be provided for developments adjacent to, or integrated with, BRT stations. Attractively designed BRT stations with conflict-free, weather-protected pedestrianways connecting transit stations to adjacent activity centers can have a positive effect on land development. The St. Laurent station along Ottawa’s Transitway is an example of such a treatment. • Site designs for TODs should encourage density, diversity, and walkability. Transit-supportive uses (such as retail, office, and residential) should be encouraged. Mixed-use developments can add interest and variety; however, the various uses do not have to be mixed in the same location. • Parking policies should support TOD. It is desirable to avoid either too much or too little parking. Parking should be limited, especially adjacent to BRT stations, and structured parking, while costly, may be desirable where land costs are high and space is at a premium. Ottawa’s policies, for example, specify a maximum parking requirement of one parking space per 455 square feet of development within 1,300 feet of a BRT station and a maximum of two spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space elsewhere. • Transit-supportive policies should be established. They can specify where various developments can locate (i.e., zoning), site design and access features, and parking requirements. Ottawa’s Official Plan, for example, requires all major centers to be located along its Transitway or LRT system. • Public-private partnerships should be encouraged. The public sector has the power to resolve land assembly problems, ensure that the site is ready for development, contribute land, and fund infrastructure improvements. Private developers can finance, build, and operate the developments. Working together, they can expedite TOD. • Service planning should consider that BRT, in contrast to rail transit, can potentially minimize transfers by providing transfer-free neighborhood feeder bus service as well as trunk service. Stakeholder Perspectives The parties involved in BRT and land development (i.e., transit users, tenants, residents, customers, transit agencies, planners, developers, lenders, and local governments) have different perspectives on the value of TOD and specific TOD design requirements. The following guidelines are directed to these differences: The various parties involved in TOD may have different perspectives on the value of TOD and TOD design requirements.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-19 Land Development Guidelines • The surveys conducted for this Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide suggest that, for developers, financial concerns related to TOD requirements, TOD incentives, and demonstrated agency commitment to the BRT (or rail) service are important. These considerations may outweigh the value of the BRT (or rail) service’s operating characteristics (e.g., headways and service span). • The differing perspectives indicate that there is an opportunity to educate the parties involved in the development of TOD projects and BRT lines. For example, developers may benefit by learning more about how their tenants view premium transit services. • Achieving TOD along BRT lines calls for achieving stakeholder consensus and resolving conflicts by establishing a clear vision and set of goals for a TOD project. The New Transit Town (10) points out that there can be conflicts between local and regional jurisdictions. These conflicts should be minimized. • The Executive Summary of the Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study (1) identifies three elements required to overcome the unwillingness of investors to finance TOD projects: well-planned phasing, a solid track record for implementing projects and conducting accurate market studies, and availability of multiple sources of capital with varying investment timelines. • Surveys conducted for the Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide identified the following developer concerns that should be addressed: > Availability of land at a reasonable cost > Land development regulations affecting properties in the vicinity of transit stations (especially those that require dedication of right-of-way to transit facilities) > Agency commitment to the transit corridor > Good connections to regional destinations > Existence of a strong development market • According to surveys described in Redevelopment and Revitalization Along Urban Arterials (11), developers may be discouraged by high development costs, difficulties in obtaining financing because comparable projects do not exist, limited development incentives, incompatible surrounding land uses, small parcel sizes, confusing codes, inflexible development regulations, slow review processes, high vehicle speeds, excessive parking requirements, high crime rates, environmental conditions, and certain state laws. Developers may be encouraged by density bonuses, low land costs in redevelopment zones, exemptions from state environmental review laws, coordinated streetscaping projects, pooled open space requirements, city efforts to reduce crime, city assistance with neighborhood communication, shortened review periods, and clearer zoning codes. The following guidelines concern specific BRT components: • Attractively designed BRT stations with conflict-free, weather-protected pedestrian-ways connecting transit stations to adjacent activity centers can have a positive effect on land development. Attractively designed stations can have a positive effect on land development.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-20 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • “More defined stations attract potential development,” according to CBRT (9). • BRT services that do not operate in a fixed guideway may not attract developer interest according to Redevelopment and Revitalization Along Urban Arterials (11). Evaluating TOD Programs TODs often evolve over a long time frame (as in Ottawa and Pittsburgh). They should be periodically evaluated for effectiveness and possible changes in public policy or public-private arrangements. The components of a recommended TOD evaluation program are shown in Exhibit 6-9. The exhibit describes the usefulness of each indicator, the ease of collecting the data necessary to evaluate each indicator, and frequency of monitoring for each indicator. Once the initial evaluation program is established, subsequent updates should be less costly. NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 (3) suggests that, because construction of a BRT line is typically less expensive than construction of a rail line, surveys of land development impacts could be funded with the cost savings. EXHIBIT 6-9 Indicators Recommended as the Foundation of a TOD Evaluation Program Indicator Useful- ness Score1 Ease of Data Collection Score2 Frequency of Monitoring3 Transit Ridership 70 61 More than once a year Density (Population/Housing) 67 — Once a year Quality of Streetscape Design 77 — Once a year Quantity of Mixed-Use Structures 60 54 Once a year Pedestrian Activity/Pedestrian Safety 60 59 Once a year Increase in Property Value/Tax Revenue 63 57 Once a year Public Perception 63 — Once a year Mode Connections at the Transit Station 63 79 Once a year Parking Configuration 53 62 Once a year 1 Percentage of survey respondents rating indicator as “Very Useful” 2 Percentage of survey respondents rating indicator as “Very Easy” to collect data 3 NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 (3) reports that the majority of indicators studied should be collected once a year or less often according to survey respondents. A key exception is Transit Ridership, which most respondents stated should be collected more often than once a year. SOURCE: NCHRP Research Results Digest 294 (3) In general, BRT systems are likely to attract levels of ridership (comprising customers, residents, and employees) like those of rail systems with similar service characteristics. Property values can increase near a BRT station beyond that observed in more distant locations. Resource Materials Some potential resources for BRT-related TOD program evaluation include the following: • NCHRP Research Results Digest 294: Transit-Oriented Development: Developing a Strategy to Measure Success (3), available through TRB, gives indicators for monitoring TOD programs. It suggests that “...transit agencies/state DOTs/MPOs set aside special funds for TODs to support pedestrian activity surveys, resident and merchant surveys, analyses of property values and taxes, design assessment, and density tracking.” General TOD information is available from many other sources.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 6-21 Land Development Guidelines • The Center for Transit-Oriented Development maintains the National TOD Database, which is a “GIS [geographical information system] database that combines a current demographic snapshot of who presently lives near transit with information on travel behavior in each transit region of the country.” A promising potential application of this database is the ability to derive historical trends and before-and-after comparisons of station area development. • The Center for Transit-Oriented Development and the Urban Land Institute have published several reports and case studies about the impacts of TOD in general and factors in successful TOD projects. • The BRT Institute at the Center for Urban Transportation Research is a clearinghouse of information about existing and planned BRT services. • VTPI’s Online TDM [Transporation Demand Management] Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/) summarizes many sources of TOD and TOD-related information. • The U.S. Census provides relevant demographic data (e.g., population densities) in a variety of formats. • Building permit data, vacancy rates, rental prices, and home value data can be obtained from local governments to track development activity and demand for development near BRT stations. • Local government staff (from planning, economic development, and real estate departments) can provide information about new projects, developer response to TOD program requirements and incentives, and TOD trends. • Transit agency staff can provide information about new projects, developer response to TOD program requirements and incentives, and TOD trends • Other comprehensive TOD research reports and studies include the following: > TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects (2), available through TRB > Developing Around Transit: Strategies and Solutions that Work (8), available from the Urban Land Institute > The New Transit Town (10), edited by Dittmar and Ohland and available from Island Press REFERENCES 1. Parker, T., and G. B. Arrington. Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California, Executive Summary. California Department of Transportation, May 2002. 2. Cervero, R., S. Murphy, C. Ferrell, N. Goguts, Y. Tsai, G. Arrington, J. Boroski, J. Smith-Heimer, R. Golem, P. Peninger, E. Nakajima, E. Chui, R. Dunphy, M. Myers, S. McKay, and N. Witenstein. TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. 3. Renne, J., and J. Wells. NCHRP Research Results Digest 294: Transit-Oriented

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Land Development Guidelines Page 6-22 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Development: Developing a Strategy to Measure Success. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005. 4. Rodriguez, D., and F. Targa. The Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2003. 5. Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, R. Smith, J. Cracknell, and R. Soberman. TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit: Vol. 1, Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, and Vol. 2, Implementation Guidelines. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 6. Nelson, D., J. Niles, and A. Hibshoosh. A New Planning Template for Transit- Oriented Development. MTI Report 01-12. San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University, 2001. 7. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. TDM Encyclopedia: Transit-Oriented Development. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm. Updated Apr. 4, 2006. 8. Dunphy, R., R. Cervero, F. Dock, M. McAvey, D. Porter, and C. Swenson. Developing Around Transit: Strategies and Solutions that Work. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004. 9. Diaz, R.B., M. Chang, G. Darido, E. Kim, D. Schneck, M. Hardy, J. Bunch, M. Baltes, D. Hinebaugh, L. Wnuk, F. Silver, and S. Zimmerman. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. FTA, Washington, D.C., 2004. 10. Dittmar, H., and G. Ohland (Eds.). The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2004. 11. Mejias, L. and E. Deakin. Redevelopment and Revitalization Along Urban Arterials: Case Study of San Pablo Avenue, California, from the Developers’ Perspective. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1902. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2005, pp. 26–34.