Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies (2015)

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 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 182 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2016 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subject Areas Public Transportation • Administration and Management Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making Guidebook for Transit Agencies WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff Washington, D.C. GB Place Making Portland, OR Robert Cervero University of California at Berkeley, CA The Overhead Wire San Francisco, CA

TCRP REPORT 182 Project H-47 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-37500-9 © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors 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 object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- rent 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 prob- lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera- tive 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 Administration (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 successful National Coop- erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser- vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research fields including planning, 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 organi- zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 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 identi- fying 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 TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos- als), 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 activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat- ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen- cies, 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, train- ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple- mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. 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 by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 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. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

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 S CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 182 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Dianne S. Schwager, Senior Program Officer Dan Magnolia, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Doug English, Editor TCRP PROJECT H-47 PANEL Field of Policy and Planning Jeremy Colangelo-Bryan, New Jersey Transit, Newark, NJ (Chair) Edward A. Beimborn, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Saukville, WI Richard G. Bickel, Econsult Solutions, Inc., Ardmore, PA Mariate Echeverry, City of Asheville, Asheville, NC Maribeth Feke, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Cleveland, OH Lucy Galbraith, MetroTransit, Minneapolis, MN Lee G. Gibson, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Reno, NV Cheryl L. King, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA Douglas R. Porter, Growth Management Institute, Chevy Chase, MD Charles E. Prestrud, Washington State DOT, Seattle, WA Heather B. Tabbert, Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, IL Faith Hall, FTA Liaison Janice R. Lorenz, CTAA Liaison Richard Weaver, APTA Liaison Kimberly Fisher, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project H-47 by WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff under the coordination of the Principal Investigator, Brian McMahon. Authors included Brian McMahon and Ella Claney of WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff; G. B. Arrington of GB Place Making; Robert Cervero, Pro- fessor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California at Berkeley; and Jeff Wood of the Over- head Wire. Additional research support was provided by Kimi Iboshi Sloop of WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff and Sasha Forbes and Sarah Klein of Reconnecting America. The research would not have been possible without the cooperation of and insight from numerous individuals from transit agencies, municipalities, developers, and other organizations. Many thanks to the following individuals who participated in this research: Vivian Baker, NJ TRANSIT; Jennifer Barr, SEPTA; Richard Bascomb, City of Schaumberg, IL; Debbie Berry, Cleveland University Circle; Dena Belzer, Strategic Economics; Michael Bolton, Pace Suburban Bus Service; Nancy Bragado, City of San Diego, CA; Kelley Britt, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency; Jeff Burns, Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority; Aaron Cain, City of Durham, NC; Brendan Cotter, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority; Michael Coulum, Sandy City,

UT; Annette Darrow, IndyGo; Colin Driver, Borough of Somerville, NJ; Dan Emerine, District of Colum- bia; Mary Beth Feke, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; Jay Flint, Empire Transit District; Sasha Forbes, Natural Resources Defense Council; Mayor Brian Gallagher, Borough of Somerville, NJ; Ryan Gallagher, IndyGo; James Garner, Pace Suburban Bus Service; Simone Gore, NJ TRANSIT; Rick Gustafson, Shiels Obletz Johnson; Shyam Kannan, WMATA; Ron Kilcoyne, Lane Transit District; Cheryl King, MARTA; Yuri Koslen, Asheville Transit Authority; Lillian Kuri, the Cleveland Foundation; Matthew Long, Central Arkansas Transit Authority; Sasha Luftig, Lane Transit District; Patrick McLaughlin, Regional Transportation District of Denver; Roger Millar, Smart Growth America; Tracey Nichols, City of Cleve- land, OH; Owen O’Neil, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority; Arthur Pearlman, Arthur Pearlman Corporation; Nick Saponara, LA Metro; Michael Schipper, Greater Cleveland Regional Tran- sit Authority; Joel Schwartz, Landmark Companies; Kyle Smith, Center for Neighborhood Technology; Lorraine Snorden, Pace Suburban Bus Service; Armond Spikell, Roadside Development; Lucy Thompson, City of Saint Paul, MN; Brian Welch, Regional Transportation District of Denver; Jason Wong, Red Point Development; and Ken Zatarain, TriMet.

TCRP Report 182: Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies was developed to help transit agencies better address the connections among transit, land use planning, and development decision making. The guidebook promotes improved transit and land use decision making by providing transit agencies with the tools to be more effective at the decision-making table. The tools, which build on successful tran- sit and land use decision-making experiences throughout the United States, will help transit agencies self-assess their readiness to participate effectively in the land use decision-making process and help improve their interactions with key stakeholders in the process, including local governments and developers. Land use decisions play a key role in shaping the long-term success of virtually every tran- sit system in the United States. Yet organizations other than transit agencies, in particular local and regional governments, hold the responsibility and authority for integrating land use and transit, and the role for transit agencies in land use decision making is often unclear. Research was needed to assess the state of the practice of transit and land use decision making and create a guidebook of approaches, techniques, and tools for transit agencies to improve their effectiveness at the land use decision-making table. Under TCRP Project H-47, WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff, GB Place Making, Robert Cervero, and the Overhead Wire were tasked to develop a guidebook to (1) enable transit agencies to effectively engage local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), state departments of transportation (DOTs), and the development community; (2) present effec- tive tools for transit agency participation in short- and long-range planning and develop- ment decisions; and (3) serve a wide spectrum of large, medium, and small communities and transit agencies that provide a range of transit services. To meet the project objectives, the research team conducted a literature review, an inven- tory of existing land use and transit practices and tools, outreach to stakeholders through surveys and interviews, and case studies of exemplary transit agencies. The guidebook developed by the researchers: • Identifies five preconditions for success to enhance a transit agency’s involvement in land use decisions: (1) a supportive transit agency board; (2) a designated staff person with technical competency; (3) a coordination process; (4) a common understanding or language; and (5) a transit-supportive community; • Provides self-assessment questionnaires for transit agencies to evaluate their effectiveness in fostering transit-supportive land use decision making among key stakeholders and helps a transit agency identify strategies to strengthen its effectiveness in affecting land use over the long term; By Dianne S. Schwager Staff Officer Transportation Research Board F O R E W O R D

• Presents tools to help transit agencies foster effective interactions for enhanc- ing communication and coordination as well as building a transit-supportive community. While transit agencies lack the jurisdictional authority to ensure that land use decisions are transit-supportive, they can collaborate with and proactively engage a broad range of major stakeholders and the general public to achieve the desired land use outcomes; and • Provides an overview of typical transit agencies’ interactions with various stake- holders and the planning processes. The guidebook answers the key questions of what transit agencies can do to become more meaningful participants in land use decision making and when and how it is worthwhile for transit agencies to get involved.

1 Summary 4 Chapter 1 Introduction 4 Why This Guidebook? 5 Research Behind the Guidebook 5 Organization of the Guidebook 6 Key Players 7 Chapter 2 Preconditions for Success 7 Supportive Transit Agency Board 8 Designated Staff Person with Technical Competency 8 Coordination Process 9 Common Understanding 11 Transit-Supportive Community 12 Chapter 3 The Self-Evaluation Process 12 Using the Self-Evaluation Process 12 Determine the Specific Scale of the Decision 13 Follow the Steps for Each Geographic Scale 14 Step 1 for All Scales – Preconditions for Success 15 Regional-Scale Planning 15 Self-Assessment: Regional Scale 16 Corridor-Scale Planning 16 Self-Assessment: Corridor Scale 17 Municipal/County–Scale Planning 18 Self-Assessment: Municipal/County Scale 19 Site-Scale Planning 19 Self-Assessment: Site Scale 21 Next Steps 22 Chapter 4 Building a Transit-Supportive Community 22 Partnering 23 Working Groups 24 Workshops and Educational Programs 24 Monitoring and Referrals 26 Using Strategic Resources 26 Eliciting Transit Agency Inputs to Local Land Use Decisions: Ontario Transit-Supportive Guidelines 27 Urban Regeneration Through TOD: Central Maryland TOD Strategy 28 Metropolitan TOD: Denver Regional Council of Governments TOD 28 Articulating the Costs and Benefits 29 Costs 30 Benefits 31 Summary of Resources and Tools C O N T E N T S

33 Chapter 5 Case Studies 33 Summary 35 NJ TRANSIT – Transit Friendly Planning Land Use and Development Program 36 Pace Suburban Bus Service – Transit Supportive Guidelines and Design Review Assistance for Transit 37 TriMet – Portland Pearl District Transit and Land Use Integration 39 GCRTA – Cleveland HealthLine and Greater University Circle Initiative 42 Chapter 6 Key Partners 42 State Governments 43 Transit Agency Involvement with State Governments 44 Regional Agencies 44 Transit Agency Involvement with Regional Governments 46 Local Governments 46 Transit Agency Involvement with Local Governments 47 Developers 48 Transit Agency Involvement with Developers 50 Chapter 7 Planning Processes 50 Geographic Scales of Land Use Planning 52 Transit Agency Involvement in Land Use Decisions 53 Regional Planning 53 Transit Agency Participation in Long-Range Transportation Planning 56 Municipal/County Planning 57 Transit Agency Involvement with Comprehensive Planning and Zoning 61 Corridor Planning 61 Transit Agency Involvement in Corridor Planning 63 Subarea Planning 64 Transit Agency Involvement with Subarea Planning 65 Site Development Planning 66 Transit Agency Involvement with Site Development 69 Transit Agency Site Development 71 Bibliography 75 Appendix A Impact of the 5 Ds on Transit Ridership 81 Appendix B Distributed Survey 103 Appendix C Case Studies 121 Endnotes