Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects (2004)

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.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2004 www.TRB.org T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 102 Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation SUBJECT AREAS Planning and Administration • Public Transit Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects ROBERT CERVERO STEVEN MURPHY CHRISTOPHER FERRELL NATASHA GOGUTS YU-HSIN TSAI Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA G. B. ARRINGTON JOHN BOROSKI Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Portland, OR JANET SMITH-HEIMER RON GOLEM PAUL PENINGER ERIC NAKAJIMA ENER CHUI Bay Area Economics Berkeley, CA ROBERT DUNPHY MEL MYERS SHANNON MCKAY NICOLE WITENSTEIN Urban Land Institute Washington, DC

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Admin- istration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including plan- ning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organizations: FTA, The National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activ- ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. TCRP REPORT 102 Project H-27 FY 2001 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 0-309-08795-3 Library of Congress Control Number 2004107489 © 2004 Transportation Research Board Price $45.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Special Notice The Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, the National Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 102 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, TCRP Manager GWEN CHISHOLM, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing Editor ELLEN M. CHAFEE, Assistant Editor BETH HATCH, Assistant Editor PROJECT PANEL H-27 Field of Policy and Planning RICHARD G. BICKEL, JR., Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA (Chair) EDWARD A. BEIMBORN, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Center for Urban Transportation Studies TODD HEMINGSON, VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, TX WILLIAM JONES, CityLink Investment Corporation, San Diego, CA JACK KANAREK, New Jersey Transit Authority JACK LIMBER, San Diego Metropolitan Transit ANASTASIA LOUKAITOUS-SIDERIS, University of California—Los Angeles JEFF ORDWAY, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DOUG GERLEMAN, FTA Liaison Representative PAUL MARX, FTA Liaison Representative EFFIE STALLSMITH, FTA Liaison Representative RICHARD WEAVER, APTA Liaison Representative PETER SHAW, TRB Liaison Representative AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and organizations—too many to list individu- ally—contributed to this study. In particular, those taking the time to complete surveys, sit through interviews, and support the case-study work provided insights and information that were invaluable to the completion of this work. The TCRP H-27 panel also provided ongo- ing guidance and direction that was pivotal to conducting the research. Robert Cervero, Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California at Berkeley, was the Principal Investigator of the project, designing and directing all phases of the research. He wrote the Summary; Chapters 1 through 9; Chapters 11, 20, and 21; co-authored Chapters 12, 18, and 19; and edited and contributed to all other chapters. Graduate research assistants from the University of California at Berkeley contributed as follows: Steven Murphy authored Chapter 16 and contributed to Chapter 5; Christopher Fer- rell and Yu-Hsin Tsai were co-authors of Chapter 19 and con- tributed to Chapter 4; and Natasha Goguts co-authored Chapters 11 and 18 and contributed to Chapter 8. Chris Amado of Berkeley’s Institute of Urban and Regional Development helped with prepar- ing the manuscript. G. B. Arrington and John Boroski of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., were the principal authors of case studies in Chapters 14, 15, and 17. From Bay Area Economics, Janet Smith- Heimer, Ron Golem, Paul Peninger, Eric Nakajima, and Ener Chui were the principal authors of Chapter 13 and contributed to Chap- ters 5, 10, and 12. From the Urban Land Institute, Robert Dunphy co-authored Chapter 12 and contributed to Chapter 10, Mel Myers and Shannon McKay contributed to Chapter 10, and Nicole Witen- stein contributed to Chapter 12.

FOREWORD By Gwen Chisholm Staff Officer Transportation Research Board TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experi- ences, Challenges, and Prospects provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of the practice and the benefits of transit-oriented development (TOD) and joint develop- ment throughout the United States. This report will be helpful to transit agencies, the development community, and local decision makers considering TOD. Focusing development around transit facilities has become a significant way to improve accessibility, support community and regional goals of enhancing the quality of life, and support the financial success of transit investment. The experiences of a new generation of transit systems highlight the powerful role that transit investments play in channeling urban development. Benefits attributable to transit-oriented development (TOD) initiatives include improved air quality, preservation of open space, pedestrian- friendly environments, increased ridership and revenue, reduction of urban sprawl, and reorientation of urban development patterns around both rail and bus transit facilities. Today, many transit systems and communities across the country are participating in TOD programs. TOD participants range from small local and intercity bus systems with community-related services to large local and intercity rail systems with numerous projects. Increasingly, transit agencies are looking at programs and analyzing real-estate competitiveness to solicit developer interest. This report defines TOD and joint devel- opment and offers insight into the various aspects of implementing TOD, including political and institutional factors; planning and land-use strategies, benefits, and impacts; fiscal considerations and partnerships; and design challenges and considerations. Robert Cervero, of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the Uni- versity of California at Berkeley, was the report’s principal author. To achieve the proj- ect’s objective of summarizing the state of the practice of TOD, the research team per- formed a literature review, conducted a comprehensive survey, performed interviews, and conducted 10 case studies. The 10 case studies (Boston, New Jersey, the Washing- ton [D.C.] Metropolitan Area, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, Portland, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Southern California) covered a range of TOD designs and practices. The report focuses on TOD and joint development and practice; the level of col- laboration between various partners (e.g., the development community, financial part- ners, planning and land-use agencies, and government entities); the impacts of TOD and joint development on land values; the potential benefits of TOD; and successful design principles and characteristics. A companion publication to this report, TCRP Research Results Digest 52: Transit- Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review, reviews pertinent literature and research findings related to TOD and joint development. It contains a bibliography annotated by subject area.

S-1 SUMMARY 1 PART 1: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY 3 CHAPTER 1 Transit-Oriented Development: An Overview Introduction, 3 Study Approach, 4 What Is TOD?, 5 Joint Development: What Is It?, 8 Goals and Objectives, 9 Summary, 11 Notes, 11 13 CHAPTER 2 The Breadth and Scope of U.S. TOD and Joint Development TOD Activities, 13 Joint Development Projects, 18 Summary, 35 Notes, 35 37 PART 2: THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT 39 CHAPTER 3 The TOD Institutional Landscape in the United States Institutional Setting, 39 Transit-Agency Organizational Context, 39 Other Organizational and Legislative Contexts, 43 Cooperation and Collaboration, 51 Regulatory Environment, 54 Summary, 58 Notes, 59 61 CHAPTER 4 TOD Implementation Tools Getting the Job Done, 61 TOD Visioning and Planning, 61 TOD Zoning, 63 Implementation Tools and Ratings, 71 Help from Above, 75 Funding TOD: Public Perspective, 76 Summary, 81 Notes, 82 83 CHAPTER 5 Building and Bankrolling TOD: A Private-Sector Perspective TOD and the Private Sector, 83 The Market for TOD, 84 The Decision to Develop, 86 Private Financing, 89 Availability and Terms of Finance, 92 Summary and Lessons, 96 Notes, 97 99 CHAPTER 6 Barriers to TOD: What They Are and How to Overcome Them Types of Barriers, 99 Fiscal Barriers, 99 Political Barriers, 102 Organizational Barriers, 102 Barriers Unique to TOD, 103 Public-Sector Perspective on TOD Barriers, 109 Overcoming Barriers: The Development Community’s Perspective, 110 Summary and Lessons, 114 Notes, 115 117 PART 3: THE IMPACTS OF TOD 119 CHAPTER 7 Benefits of TOD TOD’s Range of Benefits, 119 Primary Benefits, 122 Secondary Benefits, 125 CONTENTS

Debates, 131 Perceptions of Benefits, 133 Conclusion, 134 Notes, 135 139 CHAPTER 8 Evidence on Ridership Impacts TOD and Ridership, 139 Reviewing the Evidence, 140 Self-Selection and Rail Commuting, 144 Transit Joint Development and Ridership, 146 TOD-Ridership Case Study: San Francisco Bay Area, 147 TOD-Ridership Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia, 152 Conclusions, 156 Notes, 157 161 CHAPTER 9 Real-Estate Market Impacts of TOD TOD and Real-Estate Markets, 161 Evidence on Market Performance, 162 The Importance of Business Cycles, System Maturation, and Timing, 166 Leveraging Transit’s Added Value Through Proactive Planning: The San Diego Experience, 168 Transit’s Added Value and Public Policies, 173 Summary and Conclusion, 176 Notes, 177 181 PART 4: CASE STUDIES 183 CHAPTER 10 TOD in Boston: An Old Story with a New Emphasis Boston Recovers Its Traditional Neighborhood Roots, 183 Boston’s TOD Toolbox, 186 MBTA, Joint Development, and TOD, 189 The Boston Economy and the Real-Estate Market, 191 Easy Transit Connections, Tough Development Sites, 191 Main Street and TOD, 196 South Station: Development Around Commuter Rail, 197 South Boston Waterfront: The Future Transit Neighborhood, 198 Lessons Learned, 202 Notes, 205 207 CHAPTER 11 New Jersey’s Transit Villages: From Refurbished Rail Towns to Ferry-Oriented Development New Jersey’s Market for TOD, 207 Other Factors Stimulating TOD, 208 The Transit Village Initiative, 212 Transit Villages in Traditional Rail Towns, 213 Ferry-Oriented Development, 220 Re-urbanization in Jersey City, 222 Transit Joint Development, 225 Conclusions and Lessons, 225 Notes, 226 229 CHAPTER 12 Washington, D.C.: Model for the Nation Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: A Joint Development Pioneer, 229 Arlington County, Virginia: Three Decades of TOD Success, 235 Transit and Economic Development in Washington, D.C., 249 Montgomery County, Maryland’s Mature Business Districts, 251 Rail to Dulles, 254 TODs and Real-Estate Market Performance, 257 Conclusions and Lessons, 259 Notes, 260 263 CHAPTER 13 TOD and Joint Development in the Sunbelt: Miami-Dade County TOD in Florida, 263 Transit Planning and Joint Development in Miami-Dade County, 264

TAD at Brickell, 271 Overtown: TOD and Inner-City Revitalization, 272 Future Plans and Activities, 276 Conclusions and Lessons Learned, 276 Notes, 277 279 CHAPTER 14 Chicago’s Transit Villages: Back to the Future for Historic Commuter-Rail Towns Greater Chicago Is Sprawling Out and Growing In, 281 Chicago’s Multi-Layered Institutional Landscape, 281 TOD Implementation Tools, 283 TOD in Commuter-Rail Communities, 285 TOD Shaping New Commuter-Rail Lines, 292 The Future of TOD in Metropolitan Chicago, 293 Conclusions and Lessons, 296 Notes, 297 299 CHAPTER 15 Dallas: Using TOD to Create Place and Value in a Sprawling Metroplex Regional TOD Players and Tools, 299 TOD in Light-Rail Communities, 301 The Future of TOD in Dallas, 316 Conclusions and Lessons, 317 Notes, 318 321 CHAPTER 16 TOD in the Mountain West: Colorado Introduction, 321 Transit-Oriented Redevelopment in Metropolitan Denver, 322 Bus-Based TOD in Boulder, 338 Resort-Based TOD in the Roaring Fork Valley, 345 Conclusions and Lessons, 350 Notes, 351 355 CHAPTER 17 Portland’s TODs: Building Community on a Regional Scale The Regional Policy Framework for TOD, 355 Evolution in Transit to Encourage TOD, 357 TOD in Portland, 359 The Future of TOD, 377 Conclusions and Lessons, 378 Notes, 379 383 CHAPTER 18 The San Francisco Bay Area: The Challenge of Creating a Transit-Oriented Metropolis Regional Initiatives, 383 Transit Agencies, 388 BART Joint Development and Outreach, 393 Fruitvale BART Station: Fulfilling a Community’s Vision, 394 Local Government Initiatives, 397 For-Profit Developers, 399 Nonprofit Affordable-Housing Developers, 402 Advocacy Groups, 404 Conclusions and Lessons, 407 Notes, 409 411 CHAPTER 19 Southern California: From TODs to a Region of Villages Southern California’s Market for TOD, 411 Other Factors Stimulating TOD, 412 Policy Context, 413 Challenges to TOD in Southern California, 416 Financing Tools and Obstacles, 421 TOD Cases, 423 Joint Development and BRT—Los Angeles, 430 San Diego’s TOD Tools, 435 Impacts of TOD, 435 Monetary Benefits of Joint Development in Los Angeles, 436

Conclusions and Suggestions, 437 Notes, 440 443 PART 5: LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 445 CHAPTER 20 Research Findings and Policy Lessons Current TOD Practices, 445 TOD’s Multitude of Stakeholders, 446 Points of Agreement and Disagreement, 448 Benefits of TOD, 453 Recurring Themes and Lessons, 455 Lessons Through Case Studies, 463 469 CHAPTER 21 Policy Reflections and Future Research Directions Policy Reflections, 469 Future Research Directions, 471 Notes, 474 475 BIBLIOGRAPHY 479 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A-1 APPENDIX A: Transit Agency Survey B-1 APPENDIX B: Developer Interview Protocol C-1 APPENDIX C: Lender Interview Protocol