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.

PART 1 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained currency not only as a promising means of expanding the ridership base of U.S. urban rail and bus systems, but also as an approach to revitalizing communities, a new vernacular of architecture and urbanism, and a venue for increasing choice and diversity in local housing markets. Part 1 of this report reviews the scope of TOD activities in the United States today. The first chapter provides an overview of TOD and transit joint development, reviewing local definitions as well as goals and objectives, and discussing this study’s overall methodology. Chapter 2 inventories the scope and breadth of contemporary TOD and joint development in the United States, highlighting noteworthy examples among rail and bus systems and across big and small cities.

3Chapter 1 Transit-Oriented Development: An Overview Introduction Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained currency in the United States as a means of promoting smart growth, injecting vitality into declining inner-city settings, and expanding lifestyle choices. TOD’s focus of locating new construction and redevelopment in and around transit nodes is viewed by many as a promising tool for curbing sprawl and the automobile dependence it spawns. Some hope that TOD can breathe new life and vitality into areas of need by channeling public investments into struggling inner-city settings. And by creating more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods with good transit connectivity, TOD is thought to appeal to the lifestyle preferences of growing numbers of Americans, such as childless couples, those Americans belonging to “Generation X,” and empty-nesters. That elusive concept, quality of life, is another often-heard reason why TOD should be pursued. Many Americans spend too much time getting to and from work, robbing them of time at home with families and friends. Between 1990 and 2000, the average nationwide travel time to work rose by almost 3 minutes, to 25.5 minutes. Commuters in Atlanta reported the largest increase in commute time, on average, a 5.2-minute increase. The widespread perception of many Atlantans that quality of life is rapidly eroding has prompted a number of radical changes in recent years, like the formation of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), a watchdog state agency with purse-string powers, whose principal charge is to coordinate transportation and land use. The recent transformation of Atlanta’s Lindbergh Station from being predominantly a surface parking lot to being a vibrant rail-served mini-city signals an abrupt shift in policy, one aimed at exploiting transit’s development potential. Rather than passively sitting back and letting the market determine what, if anything, happens around stations, more and more transit agencies and their partners across the United States are today proactively creating new markets for transit by targeting growth in and around stations. Interest in TOD is being driven from the supply side also. New rail or bus rapid transit systems are planned or under construction in all but three of the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. While older east-coast cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York have more than a 100-year legacy of TOD, going back to the streetcar suburbs of yesteryear, today cities like Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Portland, and Minneapolis are borrowing a chapter from the past, exploiting new rail investments to create transit-friendly urban forms. This report provides a comprehensive review of the practice of TOD in the United States. Through a combination of

canvassing the literature, surveying and interviewing key stakeholders, and conducting in-depth case studies, TOD’s current state of the art and state of practice in the United States are assessed. Part 1 of the report provides a summary of the present-day scope of TOD in the United States and its closely related cousin, joint development. As discussed later, joint development is defined in this study as a form of TOD that occurs on transit-agency property and typically involves a public-private partnership. Part 2 probes the current institutional, organizational, and regulatory environment that governs TOD practice, drawing on survey results and informant interviews of seven stakeholder groups from both the public and private sectors. Part 3 is evaluative in nature, reviewing evidence on the benefits of TOD and assessing the degree to which it has achieved its hoped-for targets, be they traffic congestion relief or expanding options in affordable housing. Original research on the ridership impacts of development activities around transit stations is also presented, based on experiences in the San Francisco Bay Area and Arlington County, Virginia. Part 4 provides focused insights into TOD and joint development through 10 in-depth case studies. Each case study focuses on a particular theme or issue related to TOD. Together, they provide a rich portrait of contemporary TOD practices in the United States—successes as well as failures—from a multitude of perspectives. Case studies like that of Portland, Oregon, focus on experiences in promoting mixed-use development and affordable housing near rail lines in a setting where anti-sprawl initiatives abound, while case studies like that of Chicago, Illinois, examine the role of political leadership in spearheading redevelopment in traditional commuter- rail neighborhoods. Part 5 concludes the report with a summary of key findings, overall policy conclusions, and suggestions for further research. Appendixes A, B, and C provide supplementary material. Study Approach The main tactic used in compiling information about TOD and joint development in the United States was to talk with, interview, and survey those most actively involved—the stakeholders. Insights and information for five public-sector stakeholder groups—transit agencies, local governments, redevelopment agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state departments of transportation (DOTs)—were compiled mainly from responses to open-ended and close-ended survey questions. Views and opinions from two private- sector interests—developers and lenders—were elicited primarily through telephone interviews, using a structured interview protocol. Surveys and interviews were conducted from July to September 2002. The survey process focused on compiling background information and attitudinal responses from all U.S. transit agencies as well as other stakeholder groups in large metropolitan areas where TOD is known to exist in some form.1 In all, the number of surveys received (and the response rates) from each public-sector stakeholder group was the following: 90 from transit agencies (21.7%), 23 from local governments (29.5%), 8 from redevelopment agencies (44.4%), and 24 from MPOs (28.9%). 4

For further discussions of the survey methodology and copies of survey instruments, see the interim report for TCRP Project H-27: Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Stakeholder Analysis. Complementing the national survey were the 10 case studies, chosen to provide more detailed insights into the “art and science” of TOD implementation. These highlight best-case practices and performance impacts as well as missed opportunities, disappointments, and implementation barriers. The 10 cases—Boston, New Jersey, the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, Miami Metro, Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), the San Francisco Bay Area, and Southern California— were selected in close consultation with the TCRP H-27 project panel to highlight various themes and issues surrounding TOD. Case studies were conducted through a series of steps: collection and review of background materials and information (through literature reviews and Internet searches); initial telephone correspondence with “key local players” (to explain the purpose of the study and solicit local support and interest); preparation of a “study plan” (based on background materials and telephone contacts); field visits (using interview templates to elicit inputs from local stakeholders); collection of data, reports, newspaper articles, and other secondary materials; visits to and photographs of projects; follow-up contacts (to fill in missing information); draft case-study preparations (provided to key local contacts for reactions and suggestions); and final case-study write-ups.2 What Is TOD? There is no universally accepted definition of TOD because development that would be considered dense, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-supportive in a middle-size city in the Midwest would be viewed quite differently in the heart of Manhattan or the District of Columbia. Moreover, the “tag” of TOD has recently come under attack by those who contend that buildings erected near U.S. transit nodes do not always have any kind of functional or meaningful relationship to the station. In sizing up neighborhoods surrounding train stations in the United States today, Hank Dittmar, President of the Great American Station Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that promotes economic development through the preservation of railroad stations, recently remarked: “Most often they have conventional single-use development patterns, with conventional parking requirements, so that the development is actually transit adjacent rather than transit oriented.”3 Such a take has spawned a new term for characterizing land development near transit, “transit- adjacent development,” or TAD (a less desirable form of development for some than TOD). In this study, we opted not to parse definitions of TOD, leaving it to local stakeholders to identify what they consider to be TOD from their own or their agencies’ perspectives. Ten of the 90 surveyed transit agencies (11.1%) had formally adopted a definition of TOD, according to respondents. Most in-house definitions of TOD came from large transit properties operating rail services, with the notable exception of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority serving the Aspen, Colorado, area. Table 1.1 5

Transit Agency Definition ATLANTA: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Broad concept that includes any development that benefits from its proximity to a transit facility and that generates significant transit ridership. ASPEN: Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Colorado Land development pattern that provides a high level of mobility and accessibility by supporting travel by walking, bicycling, and public transit. BALTIMORE: Maryland Transit Administration A relatively high-density place with a mixture of residential, employment, shopping, and civic uses located within an easy walk of a bus or rail transit center. The development design gives preference to the pedestrian and bicyclist. CHARLOTTE: Charlotte Area Transit System High-quality urban environments that are carefully planned and designed to attract and retain ridership. Typically, TODs provide for a pedestrian-friendly environment. NEW JERSEY: New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) An environment around a transit stop or station that supports pedestrian and transit use, created by providing a mix of land uses in a safe, clean, vibrant, and active place. CHICAGO: Regional Transportation Authority of Northeast Illinois (RTA) Development influenced by and oriented to transit service that takes advantage of the market created by transit patrons. ORLANDO: Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) A sustainable, economically viable, livable community with a balanced transportation system where walking, biking, and transit are as valued as the automobile. SALT LAKE CITY: Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Projects that enhance transit use, improve the quality of service provided to Authority riders, or generate revenue for the purpose of supporting public transit. SAN FRANCISCO: Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART) Moderate- to higher-density development, located within an easy walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the automobile. TOD can be new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation facilitate transit use. WASHINGTON, D.C.: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Projects near transit stops which incorporate the following smart-growth principles: reduce automobile dependence; encourage high shares of pedestrian and bicycle access trips to transit; help to foster safe station environments; enhance physical connections to transit stations from surrounding areas; and provide a vibrant mix of land-use activities. Table 1.1. Transit Agency Definitions of TOD

presents the definitions of TOD adopted by these 10 agencies. Some definitions relate to smart-growth and sustainability principles in general, although most focus on the design characteristics of transit-supportive environments. Most definitions emphasize the importance of high-quality walking environments. Four of the definitions call for mixed land uses and two specifically mention higher-density developments. Also, three definitions tie TOD to increases in ridership and revenues. The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) in metropolitan Chicago views TOD in market terms. In general, there is agreement within the professional transit community as to what constitutes a TOD: a pattern of dense, diverse, pedestrian-friendly land uses near transit nodes that, under the right conditions, translates into higher patronage. Similar definitions of TOD were offered by other stakeholder interests. Local governments tend to cast TOD in more specific terms, such as minimum floor- area ratios (FARs) and distances to rail stops, that are often tied to development regulations and zoning codes. Buffalo, New York, for example, allows specific uses with specific FAR and setback requirements in its “transit station zoning district.” Mountain View, California, has adopted a 2,000-foot radius around rail stations to circumscribe TOD, applying fairly permissive zoning standards within the sphere in hopes of leveraging new investments. Comparatively few redevelopment agencies, MPOs, or state DOTs surveyed had formally adopted TOD definitions. One higher-level agency that has taken a leadership role in promoting and marketing the TOD concept is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In its recent comprehensive study of TOD, Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California, Caltrans defined TOD similarly to most local transit agencies: higher than usual densities, mixed land uses, and pedestrian-friendly designs. California’s definition is noteworthy for making the point that TOD is not “anti-car,” emphasizing that TOD creates an attractive pedestrian environment “without excluding the auto.” This caveat is not surprising given that California has one of the highest automobile ownership rates in the country.4 It bears noting that TOD is hardly a new concept. A century ago, highly walkable, mixed-use communities blossomed around most streetcar and interurban rail lines in the United States. The subsequent uprooting of these systems in favor of roads and super-highways witnessed the gradual disappearance of transit-oriented communities. Single-use automobile-oriented subdivisions, scattered in all corners of a metropolis, became the dominant built form instead. In many ways, TODs aim to restore many of the features of yesteryear’s cityscapes—comfortable and enjoyable streetscapes, vibrant and interactive public spaces, and an assemblage of land uses that invite people to stroll, linger, and interact with each other. In his recent report, The Returning City: Historic Preservation and Transit in the Age of Civic Revival, Dan Costello et al. comment that the recent spurt in literature and considerable press given to TOD seems to suggest that there is something different and unique about this approach to urbanism and community design than in years past. They remind 7

us that contemporary TOD borrows heavily from the past: The highly visible ‘neo-traditional’ success stories have led to the notion of TOD as a new idea. In fact, new TOD developments promote transit use through time- honored strategies to create density and mixed uses, income diversity, and pedestrian-supportive design. . . . The transit villages that came of age in the late 19th century exhibited all the characteristics modern TOD proponents describe as ideal for today, including a coherent transportation pattern that worked within each transit village at the pedestrian scale and multiplied efficiently throughout corridors and regions, connecting neighborhoods and suburban towns to the urban core via public transportation.5 One must also be careful not to cast TOD purely in physical determinist terms. TOD is not simply an assembly of buildings around transit nodes. It is also about community and neighborhoods. To some observers, TOD is partly about building social capital—strengthening the bond between people and the communities in which they live, work, socialize, and recreate. This is a side benefit, however. Mainly, the aim is to create settings which prompt people to drive less and ride public transit more. Joint Development: What Is It? The distinction between TOD and joint development is not always clear, and quite often survey respondents from transit agencies (and other stakeholder groups) used the terms interchangeably. In this study, joint development is treated as a subset of TOD—specifically, a form of TOD that is project-specific and takes place either on or adjacent to transit-agency land. The distinction between TOD and joint development was described in the following way in the questionnaire sent to transit properties for this research: Transit joint development is distinguished from TOD mainly by being tied to a specific real-estate project, venture, or brokered deal and involving the direct participation of a public entity, often a transit agency, in revenue streams and sometimes ownership. Joint development often occurs on a transit agency’s property or in its air rights; however, it can also occur on nearby private land if an improvement is physically or functionally integrated with a transit facility. Joint development at transit stations includes air-rights development, ground-lease arrangements, station interface or connection-fee programs, and other initiatives that promote real-estate development at or near transit stations to the mutual benefit of public and private interests. Despite this effort to distinguish the two enterprises, it is clear that most transit professionals lumped them together. Only 9 of the 90 transit-agency respondents indicated that their organizations had adopted a definition of joint development. Take, for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), a pioneer in the practice of transit joint development. WMATA defines joint development as: “a creative program through which property interests owned and/or controlled by WMATA are marketed to office, retail/commercial, 8

recreational/entertainment, and residential developers with the objective of developing transit-oriented development projects.”6 WMATA practices what it preaches. Between 1970 and 2002, WMATA formally entered into 38 joint development projects in the District of Columbia and bi-state area, more than any transit agency in the United States. The sum value of these ventures has exceeded $2.5 billion. Collectively, these projects—everything from air-rights leases and land rents to station connection fees—yield the agency some $6 million in annual revenues. Currently, the most remunerative initiatives involve air-rights and ground leases at the Bethesda, Ballston, and White Flint Stations. San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District, also active in joint development, adopted the following joint development definition in 1984: In the broadest sense, it [joint development] represents active cooperation between the public and private sectors in undertaking real estate ventures which either physically connect to or functionally support the transit facility. For the purposes of this policy, the term ‘joint development’ is also meant to cover those value capture mechanisms aimed at ensuring that the public shares in the benefit which accrues to the private sector (property owner/developer) because of improved access to a regional transit facility.7 Between 1984 and 2003, BART has entered into eight joint development agreements, mostly in built-up areas of the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. Several survey respondents said that their agencies have adopted the FTA’s definition of joint development. The FTA’s web site offers a generic definition: “joint development involves the common use of property for transit and non-transit purposes.”8 More specific is the language in FTA’s Circular 9300.1 for capital grant applications: “FTA encourages incidental uses of real property that can raise additional revenues for the transit system or, at a reasonable cost, enhance system ridership. FTA approval is required for these incidental uses of real property which must be compatible with the original purposes of the grant.”9 This provision has been interpreted to mean that transit agencies can sell land holdings financed by federal grants without having to return proceeds as long as the grantee retains control over projects, and funds are used to shape communities being served by transit.10 Goals and Objectives Given the definitions above, what are the goals and objectives that have been set for TODs and joint development? Open- ended survey responses from the five public-sector stakeholder groups shed light on this question. TOD Goals Increasing ridership was at the top of the list of TOD goals identified by transit- agency respondents, representing one- fifth of all goals stated (see Figure 1.1). The next most frequent set of goals identified by transit agencies was financial in nature. This set of goals included promoting economic development (and job growth) and raising revenues for transit properties. 9

Next in frequency were objectives that are more social in nature, such as enhancing quality of life and widening housing choices for consumers. A few transit agencies supported TOD to create private real-estate opportunities. Respondents from local government and redevelopment agencies cited similar TOD goals. They emphasized the role of TOD in promoting affordable housing, stimulating economic development, and revitalizing declining neighborhoods. Joint Development Goals As with TOD, transit-agency respondents were asked to list the goals for implemented joint development projects. Predictably, increasing revenues—at the farebox (from ridership) and from direct lease payments—is what motivates most transit operators to pursue joint development. After fiscal objectives, transit-agency representatives identified a host of societal reasons why joint development is important. Among these broader societal objectives, ones related to the economic well-being of cities—in terms of spurring private investments and redevelopment—topped the list. Some respondents also emphasized the aesthetic role of joint development in creating secure and active civic spaces, providing needed in-neighborhood facilities like bike paths and showcasing 10 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 6.7% 8.9% 11.1% 13.3% 15.6% 20.0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Put Property on Tax Rolls Improve Air Quality Enhance Pedestrian Access Improve Intermodal Integration One-Stop Center/Fare Outlet Reduce Parking Share Construction Costs Improve Safety Private Development Opportunities Widen Housing Choices Enhance Livability Raise Revenues Promote Economic Development Increase Ridership Percent of Total Stated Goals Figure 1.1. Relative Frequency of Stated Transit-Agency Goals for TOD Projects.

architecturally integrated and well- designed public and private buildings. Unanimity Versus Pluralism A recent assessment of TOD across the United States, drawn from interviews with practitioners and site-specific workshops, argues that the absence of a universal working definition of TOD hampers the ability to set agreed-on goals and therefore to gauge success. The authors write: Because of the lack of clarity in the definition of TOD, legitimate disagreements about what might constitute good TOD, and diverging priorities and interests, actors may bring different, and sometimes contradictory, goals to the table.11 On its web site, the recently formed Center for Transit-Oriented Development further echoes this view: “There is no clear definition of TOD or agreement of desired outcomes, and hence no way of ensuring that a project delivers these outcomes.”12 Plurality of interests and perspectives can be both a strength and a liability in the pursuit of TOD. The marketplace, be it for real estate, places to live, or widgets, is based on the very principle of variety and choice. A project next to a rail stop that is belittled as too automobile-centric in its design in some camps might stretch the limits of what is perceived as “comfortable” and politically feasible in others. The breadth of perspectives on what constitutes a TOD “success story” is addressed throughout this report, but particularly in the coverage of various stakeholder viewpoints in Chapters 3 through 5. Impediments to TOD implementation, including those related to goal formulation and visioning, are taken up in Chapter 6. Summary TOD continues to attract interest as a tool for promoting smart growth, leveraging economic development, and catering to shifting market demands and lifestyle preferences. This report, based on a combination of stakeholder survey responses, interviews, and in-depth case studies, paints a national portrait of contemporary TOD practice in the United States in its many shades and colors. TOD is widely defined as compact, mixed-use development near transit facilities with high-quality walking environments, not necessarily at the expense of automobile access. Joint development is a form of TOD that is often project specific, taking place on, above, or adjacent to transit-agency property. Recent FTA policy promotes joint development by allowing transit agencies to use incidental property, even if purchased with federal funds, for private real-estate projects that support broader community development objectives. The primary aim of TOD and joint development are to boost ridership and, relatedly, increase revenues. Community economic development and broader smart-growth agendas are secondary objectives. Notes 1 While surveys were sent to the full population of U.S. transit agencies (at least those who were members of the American Public 11

Transportation Association), for other groups representative samples were drawn. A true random sample format was not used in part because of the effort to target surveys to large metropolitan areas, especially those with rail transit systems, where TOD is known to exist in some form, such as the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, the San Francisco Bay Area, metropolitan Atlanta, the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex, and the Philadelphia-New Jersey-New York axis. To ensure a balance of responses from smaller areas that operate bus services only, random samples of local governments, redevelopment agencies, and MPOs in areas with regional populations under 200,000 were selected from master lists of these organizations. 2 Open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted among appropriate local individuals for each case study. Besides obtaining relevant information on the “what,” “who,” “why,” “when,” and “where” of TOD and joint development, efforts were made to elicit information from the perspectives of interviewed stakeholders on the following topics: goals and objectives for TOD; the presence of local or regional plans or policy visions regarding TOD; identification and description of major TODs and joint developments; impacts, performance, and outcomes (and the degree to which goals and objectives have been achieved); tools applied and incentives introduced to promote and leverage TOD (as well as interviewees’ perceptions on how effective these tools and incentives have been); approaches to institutional coordination in promoting TOD; marketing and outreach initiatives (successful and unsuccessful); major impediments to the formation of TODs; and other issues (such as impacts of park-and-ride lots on TOD, urban design considerations, creative financing approaches, and impacts of public policies). 3 M. Leccese, “Will T-Rex Meet TOD?” Urban Land, Vol. 62, No. 5 (2003): 86. 4 According to the 2000 census, the mean number of motor vehicles per household in California was 1.79. This is higher than the national average of 1.68. (Census Transportation Planning Package 2000 Profile Sheets, http://transportation.org/ctpp/home.) 5 D. Costello, R. Mendelsohn, A. Canby, and J. Bender, The Returning City: Historic Preservation and Transit in the Age of Civic Revival (Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003), 10. 6 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA Joint Development Policies and Guidelines (Washington, D.C.: WMATA Office of Property Development and Management, February 2002). 7 Bay Area Rapid Transit District, “BART Joint Development Policy” (Oakland, California: BART, 1984). 8 http://www.fta.dot.gov/. 9 Federal Transit Administration, FTA Circular 9300.1, Capital Grant Program: Application Instructions (Washington, D.C.: 1997). 10 Federal Register Notice, FTA Policy on Transit Joint Development, Vol. 62, No. 5 (March 14, 1997) pp. 12266–12269. 11 D. Belzer and G. Autler, Challenges to Implementing Transit-Oriented Development (Las Vegas, New Mexico: Great American Station Foundation, 2002). 12 See http://www.ReconnectingAmerica.org/ tod_to_scale.htm. 12

13 Chapter 2 The Breadth and Scope of U.S. TOD and Joint Development TOD Activities A wide array of TOD currently exists across in the United States. Table 2.1 lists the TOD projects identified by surveyed stakeholders, starting with TODs oriented to rail followed by bus- based ones and organized by numbers of projects in each metropolitan area. Most TODs on the list were identified by survey respondents, but known TODs documented in the literature are also shown. Many more TODs are in various stages of planning and development; those listed in Table 2.1 were on the ground or substantially developed as of late 2002. In all, well over 100 TODs were identified. TOD designations, of course, are quite subjective: one person’s TOD may be viewed by others as little more than an office building with suburban parking ratios that happens to be near a train stop. Table 2.1, moreover, is not a complete inventory because not all transit agencies, local and state governments, and other surveyed groups responded to the survey. Thus, the list should be viewed as illustrative of the types and geographic distributions of TODs found in the United States although not necessarily complete. Figure 2.1 shows that the largest numbers of TODs on the list were served by heavy- rail systems, followed by light rail, commuter rail, bus, and ferry. The majority (more than 100) of the listed TODs are located in large rail- served cities. The San Francisco Bay Area has the most identified TODs, served by heavy-rail (BART), commuter-rail (Caltrains and the Capitol Corridor), and light-rail (Santa Clara Valley and San Francisco Municipal Railway [MUNI]) systems. Other national TOD leaders are the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, Portland (OR), Atlanta, and Dallas. The list for pro-TOD cities like Portland could be expanded if smaller-scale projects were included. As discussed in Chapter 17, the Portland area has witnessed a considerable amount of high-density infill projects within walking distance of light-rail stations, like 172nd and East Burnside and the Oneota Townhomes in the Greshman area and the Westshore Apartments, Vandalay Arms, and Hazelwood Apartments in the city of Portland. Many infill projects in Portland are also found on active bus corridors, like Irvington Place, Hollywood Townhomes, Macadam Village, and Pearl Court Apartments. Many U.S. TODs are situated outside of central cities, in newer and older suburbs alike. Some TODs, notably the Rosslyn- to-Ballston axis and Jefferson Davis Corridor (Pentagon and Crystal City areas) in Northern Virginia, are quite dense, featuring high-rise clusters of office towers, retail shops, housing, entertainment, and civic uses (see Chapter 12). Since 1960, over 98% of office and retail development and 95%

14 Metropolitan Areas: RAIL & RAIL/BUS AGENCIES TODs Descriptions San Francisco Bay Area: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District * Concord BART * Pleasant Hill BART * Walnut Creek BART * Rockridge BART * Daly City BART * El Cerrito del Norte BART * Berkeley BART * Lake Merritt BART * Fruitvale BART * Hayward BART * Fremont BART * Embarcadero BART corridor (downtown San Francisco) * 16th/Mission BART * 24th/Mission BART * Colma BART * Mixed-use office & housing * Mixed-use office, hotels, housing * Predominantly office with some retail * Mixed-use housing, office, retail * Mixed-use office, retail, housing * Mixed-use housing and retail * Traditional downtown with office & retail * Office, educational, housing, modest retail * Mixed office, retail, housing, services * Mixed housing, retail, city hall * Mixed office, medical, housing * Dense downtown of office, retail, hotels, housing, government * Mixed-use retail & housing * Mixed-use retail & housing * Mixed-use retail & housing San Francisco/San Mateo/Santa Clara County Axis: Caltrain, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, San Francisco Municipal Railway, San Mateo County Transit District * Mission Bay (San Francisco) * Bay Meadows (San Mateo) * The Crossings (Mountain View) * Redwood City * San Mateo downtown * Mid-high rise residential/mix use * Mixed-use development * Townhouses, neo-traditional streets * City Center, affordable housing, & retail * Traditional rail-served center city Santa Clara County: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) * Moffett Park (Sunnyvale) * Ohlone-Chynoweth (San Jose) * Almaden Lake Village (San Jose) * Northside Industrial district * Office cluster * Compact housing, retail center, civic uses * Compact housing & services * High-tech office, commercial, housing San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento: Capitol Corridor Joint Authority * Davis Station * Martinez Station * Emeryville Station * Nodal, walking-friendly development * Traditional downtown undergoing redevelopment * Adaptive reuse/mixed housing & office Washington, D.C.-Maryland- Virginia: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Montgomery County Transit * Silver Spring Metro (MD) * Bethesda Metro (MD) * Grosvenor Metro (MD) * Twinbrook Metro (MD) * Gallery Place-Chinatown (D.C.) * White Flint (D.C.) * Rosslyn (VA) * Courthouse (VA) * Ballston (VA) * Clarendon (VA) * Virginia Square (VA) * Pentagon City (VA) * Crystal City (VA) * Redevelopment of urban core * Mixed office, hotel, restaurant node * Housing & commercial node * Office, retail, housing, hotel infill * Urban mid-rise office, retail, housing * Mixed housing & retail uses * High-rise office, retail, housing * Major mixed-use development * Office, retail, housing, hotel, civic uses * Office, retail, housing node * Office, retail, housing, hotel uses * Mid-high rise office, retail, housing, hotel * Office, retail, housing, hotel node Table 2.1. Existing TODs Identified by Survey Respondents or from Literature Review, Late 2002

Metropolitan Areas: RAIL & RAIL/BUS AGENCIES TODs Descriptions Portland, Oregon: TriMet * Orenco Station * LaSalle Apartments * Greshman Civic Neighborhood * Russellville Commons * Center Commons * Stadium Station Apartments * Collins Circle * Liberty Centre * Buckman Heights * Mixed housing, town center * Compact housing & ground-floor retail * Retail, housing, community uses * Large-scale apartment complex * Mixed-income housing development * Mid-rise mixed housing & retail * Mid-rise housing & ground-floor retail * Office, retail, plaza development * Housing & retail with carsharing Atlanta: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) * Georgia State Station * North Avenue Station * BellSouth Center * Midtown Station * West downtown area * Decatur Station * Lindbergh City Center * State of Georgia Floyd Office Towers * Office concentration, with retail * Office tower with auxiliary buildings * Office concentration, with retail * Entertainment/office/retail area * Restaurant/entertainment district * Office, retail, multifamily housing San Diego: Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) * America Plaza * Rio Vista West * Hazard Center * Uptown District * La Mesa Village Plaza * Village of La Mesa * Mercardo at Barrio Logan * Downtown office, shops, art museum * Mixed housing & neighborhood retail * Townhouses, office, retail * Bus-oriented housing & retail * Condominium, offices, retail * Large-scale apartment development * Mixed housing and retail center Los Angeles: Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), Metrolink, Antelope Valley Transit Authority * Hollywood/Highland * Pine Court (Long Beach) * Holly Street Village (Pasadena) * North Hollywood Arts District * Lancaster Metrolink * Montage at Village Green (Sylmar) * Retail, entertainment, theater complex * Vertically mixed retail, office, housing * Apartment & ground-floor retail * Mixed-use bus transit village * Mixed-use development * Mixed single-family housing Dallas: Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) * Mockingbird Station * Southside on Lamar * Galatyn Park (Richardson) * Plano Transit Village * Westside Village * Cedars Station * Mixed office, retail, housing * Mixed-use development * Housing with retail * Traditional redeveloped downtown * Mixed-use development * Apartments & ground-floor retail Chicago: Regional Transit Authority of Northeast Illinois, Pace Suburban Bus, Metra Railway, Chicago Transit Authority * Evanston-Davis Street * Marion Street Station * Arlington Heights Station * Riverdale Metra * Woodstock Metra * Franklin Park * Dense residential, retail, entertainment * Housing & retail near mall * Dense residential, retail, entertainment * Traditional mixed retail area * Mixed housing and retail * Traditional neighborhood New York Suburbs: Metro North * Mount Vernon Station * Ossining Station * New Rochelle Station * Yonkers Stations * White Plains/Bank Street Commons * Retail, hotel, sports arena * Mixed residential, retail project * Intermodal center in traditional downtown * Retail, office, restaurant, housing * Housing, office, hotel development Baltimore: Maryland Transit Administration * Owings Mills Metro * Cultural Center Light Rail Station * Lexington Market Metro * Converting to compact, mixed-use center * Symphony Center/State office complex * Urban revitalization zone Table 2.1. (Continued) (Table continues next page)

16 Metropolitan Areas: RAIL & RAIL/BUS AGENCIES TODs Descriptions Denver: Regional Transit District * Englewood City Center * I-25/Broadway * Greenwood Village * Compact, mixed-use development * Mixed-use area poised to redevelop * Traditional mixed-use center Seattle: Seattle Metro * Overlake (Redmond) * Northgate North * Renton Transit Center * Rental housing & services * Retail, apartments, park-and-ride stalls * Apartments & intermodal center New Jersey: New Jersey Transit * Rutherford Boiling Springs * South Orange Station * Mixed-use development * Mixed-use redevelopment Salt Lake City: Utah Transit Authority * Delta Center * 4500 South Station * Mixed office, commercial, civic * Compact, pedestrian-friendly setting Miami: Miami-Dade Transit * Dadeland South * Dadeland North * Office, retail, hotel node * Concentrated retail Sacramento: Sacramento Regional Transit * Aspen Neighborhood, West Davis * Butterfield Station * Medium-density housing * Office development Cleveland: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority * Tower City Center * Shaker Square * Redeveloped office, retail, hotel complex * Renovated housing & retail, traditional St. Louis: Bi-State Development Agency * Cupples Station * Office, hotel, entertainment, sports center Metropolitan Area: BUS AGENCIES/OTHER Charlotte Area Transit System * South End * Historic Trolley upscale neighborhood with popular retail/entertainment district Delaware Transit Corporation * Wilmington Station * Downtown TOD near rail station Orange County Transportation Authority * Buena Park * Housing near Metrolink Everett Transit, Washington * Everett Station * Hewitt Avenue/Westmore * Multimodal public-private partnered development * Traditional neighborhood with transit Triangle Transit Authority * Triangle Metro Center * Dense, mixed-use development Jacksonville Transportation Authority * Riverside * Marketplace shopping in historic neighborhood Dayton Regional Transportation Authority * Schuster Arts Center * Cultural mixed-use center Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District * Centre Station/John Deere Commons * Offices, hotel, convention center at bus transfer station Kitsap Transit, Washington * Bremerton Center * Baimbridge Island Transfer Center * Downtown ferry terminal * Traditional downtown setting Sources: Survey responses; T. Parker, G. Arrington, M. McKeever, J. Smith-Heimer, Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California (Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, 2002); R. Bernick and R. Cervero, Transit Villages for the 21st Century (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997); various web sites and local sources. Table 2.1. (Continued)

of housing additions in Arlington County have been within a 1⁄2 mile of Metrorail stations: 29.7 million square feet of office space, 4 million square feet of retail, and 26,500 residential units in all.1 Outside of the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, however, the typical TOD is a small- to moderate-scale mixed- use development with slightly above- average densities (e.g., mid-rise offices with ground-floor retail, residential townhouses and condominiums in the range of 20 to 30 dwelling units per residential acre, a scattering of restaurants with entertainment uses, occasionally a hotel or two, and often civic spaces and buildings like plazas and libraries. Survey respondents from the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority and San Francisco MUNI did not list TODs because, they noted, their “entire city met the definition of TOD.” The same can largely be said for other cities with century-old rail services like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston. While TODs exist mainly in large rail cities, a fair number of predominantly bus-based TODs were identified by respondents from smaller communities. Some small-city TODs are organized around intermodal transfer facilities. Several TODs in the state of Washington are served by passenger-ferry ports. Chapter 16 provides several examples of bus-based TODs in Colorado, and Chapter 11 discusses ferry-oriented developments in Northeast New Jersey. Although not shown in Table 2.1, quite a few TODs were identified by survey respondents as being in various stages of construction and development. Listed below are some metropolitan areas that are actively pursuing new TODs and some of the TODs that are beginning to take shape in each: • Seattle: Beacon Hill, MLK@Holly, Jefferson@Ballard, Othello, Edmunds, The Gilmore; • Portland: Cascade Station, Sunnyside Village, Lexington Park, Richmond Place, The Yards at Union Station; • San Juan: Sagrado Corazon Station, Hato Rey Station; • Santa Clara County: Whisman Station, Japantown; 17 1.7% 7.8% 21.8% 31.3% 37.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Ferry Bus Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Percent of TODs Figure 2.1. Distribution of Listed TODs by Type of Transit Service.

• Metropolitan Washington (D.C.): New York Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, Twinbrook, Court House, U Street/African American Civil War Memorial/Cardozo Station; • New Jersey: South Amboy, Morristown, Hamilton, Rahway, South Orange, Rutherford; • St. Louis: Emerson Park, Swansea, Belleville, Maplewood; • San Francisco-Oakland: West Dublin, Richmond, Ashby, McArthur; • Denver: I-25/Broadway, Union Station; • Sacramento: Folsom East, South Line Extension; • Miami: Martin Luther King, Jr. Station, Santa Clara, Okeechobee Station; • Cleveland: W. 65th St./EcoVillage; • Charlotte: Huntersville, Cornelius; • Salt Lake City: 7200 South, 10000 South; and • Dayton: Wright Plaza Additionally, a number of transit properties from smaller cities identified TODs that are on the drawing boards, including Lane Transit District in Eugene, Oregon (Walnut Station, Glenwood), Kenosha Transit in Kenosha, Wisconsin (Harborpark), and Peoria Mass Transit in Peoria, Illinois (Hope IV-Riverwest). The notion of TOD as nodal development is also being recast. Today, a growing number of cities have slated entire corridors for TOD, with rail-served districts stretching over dozens of city blocks, including • Los Angeles: The city of Los Angeles has prepared a specific plan for the Vermont/Western TOD, aimed at preserving and expanding a commercial boulevard, mid-rise housing, and civic uses in a 2.2-square-mile area served by four Metro subway stations in the Hollywood-Wilshire neighborhood (Map 2.1).2 See Chapter 19 for more discussions of TOD activities in Southern California. • Houston: The city of Houston anticipates several TODs will take form once the Main Street Corridor light-rail system is completed. • Raleigh-Durham: The Triangle Transit Authority’s diesel multiple unit (DMU) system, currently under construction, calls for several TODs along the axis connecting downtown Durham to downtown Raleigh. Town centers designed around rail stops are planned for the Cary, 9th Street/East Campus, and Alston Avenue stations. • Minneapolis: Recently, the city of Minneapolis and the Metropolitan Council have joined forces to prepare TOD plans for four station areas along the Hiawatha Corridor. Joint Development Projects How prevalent is transit joint development—private development on, above, or adjacent to a transit agency’s property—in the United States today? A 1990 study counted 117 projects nationwide.3 There appear to be at least this many today, if not more. Respondents from 33 of the 90 surveyed transit properties (37%) indicated that their agencies currently have some form of joint development at stations or stops. Joint development projects were self- identified according to each agency’s 18

19 Map 2.1. Vermont/Western Transit-Oriented District, City of Los Angeles, 2002. Source: City of Los Angeles, Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 173,749 (March 2001).

own definitions of what constitutes joint development (see Chapter 1). Most transit agencies (22) with joint development operated rail services; still, nearly a third of agencies with some form of joint development operated buses only. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 list and describe joint development projects that were cited by respondents from rail and bus agencies, respectively.4 Transit properties in fast- growing areas like greater Washington D.C., Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, and the San Francisco Bay Area have been particularly aggressive in pursuing joint development. Washington’s WMATA is in a league of its own when it comes to joint development, having engaged in 30 projects of varying sizes and scopes since its inception in the late 1970s, including Bethesda Metro Center, currently the nation’s biggest joint development moneymaker, earning the agency some $1.6 million in annual lease revenue (see Photo 2.1). Two up- and-coming joint development projects, at the White Flint and New Carrollton Stations, will be the agency’s biggest and most remunerative joint development ventures over the coming decade (see Text Box 2.1). Most joint development projects use a variety of tools to spread risks and rewards. Forty of the 103 projects (39%) listed in the two tables have pursued multiple joint development initiatives. The most common type of joint development is leasing of ground space and air rights, constituting 50 and 30, respectively, of the sampled joint development projects. Figure 2.2 shows ground leases to be far more common among rail properties. Besides the Bethesda Station mixed-use project, other notable U.S. examples of air-rights leases (mostly office space) above rail stations are Ballston in Arlington County, Great American Plaza in San Diego, Union Station in Los Angeles, Datran Center at the South Dadeland Station in Miami, and Resurgens Plaza at Atlanta’s Lenox Square Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Station (see Text Box 2.2). Los Angeles’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) presently receives nearly $3.5 million annually in air-rights lease revenues. Over 25 rail joint development projects involve the sharing of operation costs (e.g., ventilation systems, utilities, and parking facilities). WMATA’s Farragut West Station, for example, taps into the International Square office and retail project’s heating and air conditioning system. At the Bethesda Station, heat generated by the transit system is being recycled into an integrated mixed-use office-retail-housing project. Sharing of construction costs (e.g., building foundations, parking facilities, and construction staging areas) by transit agencies and adjoining private development projects has occurred over 20 times nationwide. Developer-financed bus bays and drop-off spaces at the Van Ness and Bethesda Stations, for example, saved WMATA an estimated $2.1 million (1982 dollars) in construction costs. Besides air and ground leases, construction cost savings has been the only other form of joint development adopted by bus agencies to any notable extent. Still, rail agencies have been far more aggressive in seeking out cost-sharing deals, especially east- coast transit agencies like WMATA and New York City’s Metropolitan 20 (continues on page 29)

21 Agency/Project Type(s) Primary Land Use(s) Heavy-Light Rail Properties WMATA (Washington D.C.) Ballston AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Bethesda AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Clarendon SCF Office Columbia Heights GL Residential-Retail Court House GL Office-Retail Dupont Circle GL Retail Farragut North GL, SCF Office-Retail Farragut West SCF, SC, SO Office-Retail Fort Totten GL Residential-Retail Franconia - Springfield GL Retail Friendship Heights SCF, GL Mixed Commercial Gallery Place SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Greenbelt SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Grosvenor GL, SC Mixed Commercial–Residential Huntington GL, SCF Mixed Commercial–Residential McPherson Square GL Office-Retail Metro Center GL, SCF Office-Retail Minnesota Avenue SC, SO Office-Retail Prince George's Plaza GL Mixed Commercial–Residential Rhode Island Avenue GL Residential-Retail Shaw - Howard University GL, SO Mixed Commercial–Retail Silver Spring GL Mixed Commercial–Residential Takoma SC Residential-Retail Twinbrook (East & West) GL Mixed Commercial–Residential U Street SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Union Station (Connection) SCF Retail Van Dorn GL Residential-Retail Van Ness GL Office-Retail Western Bus Garage GL Residential-Retail Wheaton GL, SC Mixed Commercial–Residential BART (San Francisco) Fruitvale AR, GL, SO, EP Mixed Commercial–Residential Castro Valley GL Mixed Commercial–Residential Richmond SC, SO, EP Residential-Retail-Civic Oakland: 12 St./Civic SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Oakland: 19th St. SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) San Francisco Embarcadero SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) San Francisco Montgomery SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Table 2.2. U.S. Rail Joint Development Projects, Transit-Agency Responses (Table continues next page)

22 Agency/Project Type(s) Primary Land Use(s) BART (San Francisco) (cont.) San Francisco Powell SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) MARTA (Atlanta) Lindbergh City Center GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Abernathy GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Medical Center GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) One Atlanta GL Office Resurgens Plaza AR Office DART (Dallas) Mockingbird AR, SCF, NPC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Southside on Lamar NPC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Galatyn Park NPC, SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Plano IA, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential City Place SCF, BAD, IA Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) MTDB (San Diego) American Plaza AR, NPC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Imperial-12th Street NPC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Grossmont GL, SO Retail Barrio Logan EP Residential La Mesa Village EP Mixed Commercial–Residential MTA (Los Angeles) Union Station Gateway AR, SCF, BAD, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Grand Central Market AR, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Hollywood/Highland AR, GL, SC, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Pacific Court EP Mixed Commercial–Residential TriMet (Portland) Arbor Vista EP Residential Collins Circle EP Mixed Commercial–Residential Gresham Central EP Residential Maryland Transit Administration Cultural Center AR Civic-Entertainment Owings Mills AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Old Court Metro AR Residential Cleveland Regional Transit Tower City GL, NPC Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Gateway Walkway AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) CEOGC Headstart Daycare GL, NPC Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Table 2.2. (Continued)

23 Agency/Project Type(s) Primary Land Use(s) Santa Clara Valley (CA) Sunnyvale: Moffet Park GL, NPC Office San Jose: Olhone-Chynoweth GL, NPC Mixed Commercial–Residential San Jose: Almaden GL, NPC Residential Port Authority of Allegheny (PA) Castle Shannon Station AR Mixed Commercial–Residential Carnegie Station SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Steel Plaza Station GL Retail Southeastern Penn. Transp. Authority Gallery I & 11/Market East NPC Retail Suburban Stations NPC Retail Miami-Dade Transit Dadeland South AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Dadeland North AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Regional Transp. District (Denver) Englewood CityCenter SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Arapahoe Station EP Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) MUNI (San Francisco) Mission/Stuart Hotel GL Hotel Commuter Rail Properties Metro-North Railway Harrison GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Mt. Vernon AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Ossining NPC Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Port Chester SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Yonkers SC, SCF Mixed Commercial–Residential New Jersey Transit Morristown GL, SCF, NPC, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential Key: AR=air rights lease; GL=ground lease; SCF=station connection fee; NPC=negotiated private contribution; BAD=benefit-assessment district; SC=construction cost sharing; SO=operations cost sharing; IA=incentive agreements (e.g., bonuses in exchange for improvements); EP=equity participation. Table 2.2. (Continued)

24 Agency/Project Type(s) Land Use(s) Dayton Regional Transit Authority Wright Stop Plaza SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Fifth Third Field SC Sports Facility Schuster Performing Arts Center SC Civic Facility Dayton Riverscape SC Recreation/Entertainment Use Dayton Aviation Heritage Park SO Recreation/Entertainment Use Orange County Transp. Authority Santa Ana Transit Terminal AR Office San Mateo County Transit (CA) Sequoia Station SC Institutional Colman GL Residential San Antonio VIA Metro Transit Robert Thompson/Sunset Station GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Ellis Alley GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Lane County Transit (Eugene, OR) Eugene Station GL Retail Pace Suburban Bus (IL) General Transit Center GL Institutional Foothill Transit (CA) Covina Transit Plaza SC, SO, EP Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Kenosha Transit (WI) Harborpark GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Kitsap Transit (WA) Bremerton Transportation Center AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Peoria Mass Transit Authority (IL) Transit Center SC Daycare Facility Rock Island MetroLINK (IL) Centre Station GL, NPC, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other) Southwest Metro Transit (MN) Southwest Station NPC Mixed Commercial–Residential Key: AR=air rights lease; GL=ground lease; SCF=station connection fee; NPC=negotiated private contribution; BAD=benefit-assessment district; SC=construction cost sharing; SO=operations cost sharing; IA=incentive agreements (e.g., bonuses in exchange for improvements); EP=equity participation. Table 2.3. U.S. Bus Joint Development Projects, Transit-Agency Responses

25 Photo 2.1. Bethesda Metro Center: America’s Biggest Joint Development Moneymaker. The mixed-use project in downtown Bethesda, Maryland, was completed in 1985 and sits directly atop the Metrorail station, with direct connections to commercial office space and an adjoining civic plaza. 0 1 0 2 1 7 3 11 7 1 4 6 13 19 18 25 19 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Incentive Agreements Equity Partnerships Benefit-Assessment Districts Negotiated Private Contribution Station-Connection Fee Construction Cost Sharing Operations Cost Sharing Air-Rights Lease Ground Lease No. of Transit Agencies Bus Rail Type of Joint Development: Figure 2.2. Distribution of Joint Development Types Among Surveyed Transit Agencies.

WMATA’s Joint Development Ventures: Still Growing After 30 Years Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) was one of the first transit agencies in the country to leverage real-estate development above and adjacent to its rail stations. For more than 30 years, the agency has been actively working with private developers, lenders, and other public entities to develop over 30 property sites in and around the nation’s capital. WMATA’s joint development projects range from revenue-producing schemes (e.g., air- rights leasing and station-retail connections) to cost-sharing arrangements (e.g., shared use of heating systems and construction-cost co-venturing). Key to success was the formation, early on, of a real-estate division within the transit agency. With financial and institutional support provided by board members, WMATA’s real-estate office has over time amassed an impressive portfolio of land holdings, much of it purchased on the open market. Rather than waiting and reacting to developer proposals, WMATA’s real-estate office aggressively seeks out mutually advantageous transit joint development opportunities. WMATA generally executes long-term, unsubordinated ground leases with private developers and in a few cases has made fee-simple sales. The agency’s top-performing and most impressive joint development project, the Metro Center in downtown Bethesda, features some 400,000 square feet of office space, a 380- room Hyatt Hotel, and 60,000 square feet of retail space that lies above or adjacent to the Bethesda Metrorail station. The project has spurred other nearby office, retail, and residential development within a walkable distance, including a popular nighttime restaurant, arts, and entertainment district. The air-rights lease at the Bethesda Station today generates $1.6 million annually in rents, the highest earnings for any single joint development project in the country. This sum will likely be eclipsed by the leased payments generated by the planned office-retail-residential project at the White Flint Station in Montgomery County. Commercial-Retail Joint Development at Bethesda Metrorail Station Text Box 2.1

WMATA’s Joint Development Ventures: Still Growing After 30 Years The White Flint project is poised to be a colossal joint development undertaking. The 34-acre site adjacent to the station in North Bethesda has been leased by LCOR, Inc., a Pennsylvania developer. WMATA will receive $66 million from LCOR for the 55- year, long-term ground lease. The $625 million proposal for the site includes the construction of 1.2 million square feet of office space, 212,000 square feet of retail space, and 1,400 high-rise apartments. Additionally, a 1⁄4-block “tree-save” area has been designated to allow 50 mature trees and indigenous rocks to be preserved. It is estimated that the mixed-use development will generate over 6,500 additional daily Metro riders. The project is slated for completion some time between 2011 and 2013. Another mega-project is slated for the New Carrollton Station, a joint venture between the state of Maryland, Prince George’s County, and WMATA. Plans call for the transformation of several parcels (47 acres in total) into a 2.1-million-square-foot, mixed-use project focused on the area’s Metrorail and Amtrak stations. The proposal for the WMATA parcel calls for 1.17 million square feet of office space, 92,000 square feet of retail space, 30,000 square feet of restaurant space, and a 20- screen cinema. The state of Maryland parcel will hold an additional 200,000 square feet of office space, a 300-room hotel, 375 residential units, and a possible college or university facility. Additionally, two major pedestrian axes will connect the Metro/Amtrak station to the new mixed-use development. The project’s success will depend on a close and effective working relationship among developers, construction firms, architects, real-estate professionals, and planners, in addition to public agencies. The anticipated benefits of the New Carrollton Station development include a boost in Metro ridership, increased tax revenues for the state and county, and the creation of new jobs in the area. The developments at New Carrollton and White Flint are evidence of WMATA’s continued commitment to public transit and the communities that it serves. Text Box 2.1 (Continued)

Large-Scale Air-Rights Joint Development Projects at U.S. Transit Stations. The top left photo shows Resurgens Plaza, a 400,000-square-foot office building constructed above MARTA’s north line tracks adjacent to the Lenox Station north concourse. When completed in 1989, the developer agreed to pay MARTA an annual rent of $120,000, with increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. In 2001, it added $177,000 to MARTA’s coffers. The top right photo shows the more than 4 million square feet of mixed-use space above the Ballston Metrorail subway station on what, prior to the late 1980s, was a major parking lot and bus staging area at the Orange Line terminus. Once freed from its use as an intermodal staging zone, the station area quickly emerged as the centerpiece of the Ballston redevelopment campaign. The bottom left photo shows a San Diego Trolley train entering the ground level of the 34-story Great American Plaza Tower, a 272-room hotel, restaurant, museum, and retail project at the Broadway and Kettner Transfer Station. The transit arcade that covers the Trolley station resulted from a partnership of the transit agency, the city redevelopment office and a private developer. The developer donated the land and built connecting passageways, and the regional transit operators contributed $1.2 million toward station construction. The bottom right photo is the Datran Center office towers, above and adjacent to the South Dadeland Station. Six acres of land were donated to build the station in return for a 991⁄2- year air-rights lease with a guaranteed annual income of $300,000 going to the Miami-Dade Transit Authority. Text Box 2.2

Transportation Authority. In New York City’s case, cost-shedding as opposed to cost-sharing is perhaps a more appropriate description; regardless, the presence of a density bonus provision makes this program potentially lucrative in the minds of many developers.5 Since 1982, New York City has required development sites within the Midtown Zoning District and adjacent to a subway stair entrance to relocate the subway stair within the development lot as a precondition to building approval. Making a substantial pedestrian passageway enhancement and major improvements to an adjacent subway station can earn a developer up to a 20% density bonus, a potential windfall in midtown Manhattan’s pricey commercial real-estate market (see Text Box 2.3).6 Station connection fees, another common form of joint development, likewise tend to fall within the province of rail agencies. Also referred to in the literature as station interface fees, they are especially popular with retail developers since they can deliver transit riders (and potential shoppers) to the ground floors of connecting buildings (see Text Box 2.4). WMATA is also a national leader in this arena. In the case of the Friendship Heights Station, a major retailer (Woodward and Lothrop) paid the agency a one-time fee of $300,000 (1982 currency) for the right to connect to the station rotunda and also paid for the design and construction of the tunnel. This was followed by two other retail developers who paid tie-in fees of $737,000 and $775,000, respectively, plus annual rents, for their own connections to Friendship Heights. Among the surveyed transit agencies, other forms of joint development have been applied less frequently. Because of their greater institutional capacities and planning resources, rail agencies are more likely to negotiate monetary contributions with private developers than are bus agencies. Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA), for example, negotiated with housing developers to sell land used for parking for residential development, taking advantage of FTA’s new joint development rulings that allow the agencies to keep the proceeds as long as the development is supportive of transit in its design and layout. Benefit- assessment financing has been used by the Los Angeles MTA to co-finance ancillary improvements around Red Line subway stations. Benefit assessments have also been used to pay for bus malls in downtown Minneapolis, Denver, and Portland. Minneapolis’s Nicollet Mall/busway was the first application of benefit-assessment financing in the transit field. Property owners paid 75% of the cost of financing the $3.8 million (1968 currency) bus-mall project in downtown Minneapolis in the late 1960s. Most transit joint development projects in the United States are commercial in nature. Figure 2.3 shows that rail and bus agencies have pursued different joint development land uses. Rail properties tended to focus on large-scale mixed-use projects, most commonly commercial- office and retail developments. Mixed residential and retail developments have also constituted a large share of rail joint development projects. In contrast, the joint development projects of bus operators were more likely to be single or specialized uses like sports facilities, entertainment centers, or daycare facilities. 29

New York’s Density Bonus Program A good example of cost-sharing as a “win-win” proposition is New York City’s Density Bonus Program. Introduced in the 1980s, the program entitles the city’s planning department to grant FAR bonuses of up to 20% to new commercial developments in return for improvements made to subway stations and their entrances. This program not only offloads rehabilitation costs to the private sector but also shifts development to “ground zero” (i.e., directly above subway portals). Given Manhattan’s lofty real-estate prices, the prospect of being able to add several more floors to a mid- or high-rise building has made the program an attractive proposition to the development community. New York’s subway has long suffered from being perceived as an aging, unkempt underground facility. Historically, subway entrances have not been terribly attractive, sometimes appearing like an oversize sewer cap in the middle of a sidewalk. The density bonus program has sought to provide more “humane” and “civic” connections among the streetscape, the public realm, and the underground transit facility. To date, the majority of improvements have gone toward pedestrian circulation (e.g., passageway upgrades) although monies have also been used to remove barriers to accessibility for those with disabilities, enhance air circulation and natural lighting, and add beautification/ landscaping. The cost of the typical station-entrance improvement is around $10 million, monies that the cash-strapped New York Metropolitan Transit Authority would otherwise have to bear. Among the most recent examples of developers receiving density bonuses in return for multi-million dollar subway enhancements are midtown Manhattan (8th Ave. & W. 57th St., Lexington Ave & E. 53rd St., 3rd Ave. & E. 53rd St, 8th Ave. & W. 50th St) and Queens (Long Island City). Upgraded Ground-Floor Subway Entrance and the Density-Bonused Worldwide Plaza Above It, 8th Ave. & W. 50th St., Manhattan Text Box 2.3

New York’s Density Bonus Program Enhanced Subway Entrance on 42nd St. in Newly Refurbished Time Square Civic Plaza and Glass-Shielded Subway Entrance at Lexington Ave. & E. 53rd St. Spacious, Airy Subway Entrance on Property of the Density-Bonused Office Tower at 3rd Ave. & E. 53rd St., Manhattan Text Box 2.3 (Continued) 31

Station Connections. Station interfaces or connections are one of the least expensive and potentially lucrative forms of joint development. Typically, a retailer or developer pays for the costs of a pedestrian tunnel that connects a concourse to the main level of an adjoining or nearby department store. It is a “win-win” proposition in that the transit agency benefits from being near so many shoppers (in the form of potential riders), and the retailer benefits from having transit riders walking through the ground-floor shops (and possibly purchasing an item or two). WMATA has been particularly ambitious in negotiating station-connection fees with retail developers at the busiest subway stations in the District of Columbia. Text Box 2.4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 4 4 6 18 24 36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Daycare Facility Sports Facility Recreation Facility Civic/Entertainment Center Residential Offices Retail Mixed Residential–Retail Mixed Commercial–Residential Mixed Commercial No. of Transit Agencies Bus Rail Land Use: Figure 2.3. Distribution of Land Uses of Joint Development Projects Among Surveyed Transit Agencies.

While joint development is pursued mainly by large transit properties, instances were also found among smaller agencies. The Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District (MetroLINK) in Illinois, for instance, has jointly developed a bus transfer center and mixed-use commercial center with a private developer. The Centre Station in John Deere Commons contains offices, a convention center, a hotel, a parking structure, and various pedestrian amenities (Photo 2.2).7 The joint development projects of many smaller bus-only properties are often at major terminal facilities (e.g., Santa Ana Transit Terminal, Bremerton Transportation Center, and Corpus Christi’s mixed-use transit center (Photo 2.3). Some transit agencies have yet to enter into formal joint development agreements but are actively planning to do so. Utah Transit Authority, for example, recently put out a request for proposals (RFP) for joint development of a parking lot at the 7800 South Station and is assessing the market potential of converting land around the 7200 South and 10000 South Stations to mixed-use development. In San Juan, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works has issued RFPs for joint development projects around six Tren Urbano elevated train stations: Sagrado Corazon, Hato Rey, Roosevelt, Domenech, San Francisco, and Martinez Nadal. Miami-Dade Transit has two notable joint development projects to its credit, at North and South Dadeland (which currently yield $800,000 in annual lease revenues), and is actively seeking to expand this amount considerably. The agency is currently seeking to enter into deals with private interests to develop 11 agency-owned properties. Most impressive is the Coconut Grove Metrorail station for which the transit agency entered into a lease agreement with a private developer 33 Photo 2.2. MetroLINK’s Centre Station at the John Deere Commons. The redevelopment project along the riverfront in downtown Moline, Illinois, is home to a Radisson Hotel, several restaurants, a pavilion, and the MARK, a 12,000-seat civic arena. The Centre Station intermodal facility, shown in the photo on the right, consists of a 12-bay bus staging area arranged in a sawtooth pattern at the grade level with an elevated bus transfer platform. The 4,000- square-foot structure contains office space and a multi-purpose retail lobby. Deere & Company participated in the financing of this $8.4-million project.

to build a 19-story mixed-use retail and residential project, a 19-story office building, and a community supermarket (see Photo 2.4). Miami-Dade Transit also has high hopes for the Overtown/Arena Metrorail station area that to date has seen few land-use changes. When an RFP was issued in the 1990s in hopes of enticing private capital to the neighborhood, no proposals were received. In 2000, an unsolicited proposal was received from Saint Agnes Rainbow Village Development Corporation, Inc., a not-for-profit community development corporation, calling for a mixed-use office, retail, and 34 Photo 2.3. Corpus Christi’s Staples Street Bus Transfer Facility. Serving 14 bus routes and some 5,000 daily transit users, the transfer facility, built in a Spanish-style motif, features on-site retail offerings and involved public-private equity participation. The transfer center has become a veritable town square, featuring a weekly farmers market, food concessions, and 1,500 tiles hand painted by local residents and students. By all accounts, it has given bus transit a positive image in Corpus Christi. The transfer center was the recipient of the 1995 Presidential Design Achievement Award. Photo 2.4. Planned Redevelopment for Miami- Dade Transit’s Coconut Grove Metrorail Station.

civic-use project that could yield more than $14 million in rental payments over the initial 30-year lease. (See Chapter 13 for further discussion of joint development in greater Miami.) Two other agencies currently building rail systems, Houston Metro and Triangle Transit Authority, are actively seeking out joint development opportunities. As part of the Main Street light-rail corridor program, Houston Metro is soliciting the co-participation of private interests in constructing facilities and building real- estate projects on agency properties. To entice private investment along the 16-station DMU rail system between Durham and Raleigh, the Triangle Transit Authority has adopted WMATA’s approach to joint development, evaluating the development potential of agency- owned land on an ongoing basis and soliciting private-sector participation through an RFP process. Summary A rich mix of TOD is today found across the United States, and all indications are that TOD numbers and types will grow in years to come. The practice of TOD in contemporary America is “alive and well,” not only in big rail cities but also increasingly in places where only bus services are offered—places not often associated with strong linkages between transit and urbanism. More than 100 TOD projects currently exist in the United States. They are found overwhelmingly in and around heavy-, light-, and commuter-rail stations. While TOD projects are typically nodal in form, TOD corridors have or are beginning to take shape, such as the Rosslyn-Ballston axis in Arlington County and the Vermont/Western district in Los Angeles’s Hollywood area. Further, more than 100 joint development projects today exist on, above, or adjacent to U.S. transit-agency property. The most common joint development arrangements are ground leases and operations cost- sharing. Most often, joint development occurs at rail stations surrounded by a mix of office, commercial, and institutional land uses. However, examples of public-private joint- venturing can be found among bus-only systems as well, normally in the form of joint intermodal transfer and commercial- retail space at central-city bus terminals. Notes 1 Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development, Arlington County, Development in the Metro Corridors (Arlington County, Virginia, 2002). 2 City of Los Angeles, Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 173,749 (March 2001). 3 R. Cervero, P. Hall, and J. Landis, Transit Joint Development in the United States, Monograph 42 (Berkeley: National Transit Access Center, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, 1992). 4 This is not an exhaustive list of current transit joint development projects in the United States but rather a representative coverage of recent-day initiatives. Most of the major transit joint development deals known to have occurred over the past two decades are thought to be included in the list. Many smaller transit joint development deals from earlier times, involving fairly modest monetary exchanges, are known to exist and are documented in the literature. For a fairly extensive coverage of transit joint development projects up to 1990, see R. Cervero et al., 1992, op. cit. 5 New York City’s experiences are not listed in Table 2.2 because it is not joint development 35

in a true sense of public and private interests voluntarily pursuing a program as a “win- win” proposition. New York City’s program, in contrast, is mandatory, stipulated in the zoning and permitting codes of special purpose districts in Midtown Manhattan, Union Square, Lower Manhattan, and Long Island City Mixed Use District. 6 Over the past decade, the program was expanded to encompass three other areas: Union Square, Lower Manhattan, and Long Island City Mixed Use District. For further discussions on New York City’s density bonus program, see R. Sandler, “Private Development/Public Transit: Using Transit’s Zoning Tools,” New York Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1982): 114–120. 7 See http://www.gcmetrolink.com/services/ centrestation.php. Photo Credit Photo 2.3: Project for Public Spaces 36