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.
50 This chapter builds on the partnership opportunities identified in Chapter 6 and explains the key interaction points and activities at the various geographic scales of planningâregional, municipal/county, corridor, area (subarea/district), and site. This chapter outlines the most common land use planning activities and the opportunities for transit agencies to engage in and influence decision making at different steps in the planning process. Ultimately, the goals of the transit agency are to increase ridership and maintain efficient operation of the transit system. Toward that end, transit agencies can participate in appropriate land use activities at all geographic scales of planning. Geographic Scales of Land Use Planning Ideally, transit agencies would seek out opportunities to participate at each of the various geographic scales of planning illustrated in Figure 7-1. The level of transit agency involvement will vary depending on the impact the planning activity has on transit service. The typical land use planning process includes multiple stages of progression, with each stage becoming more specific in both the geographic area of coverage and the level of specific detail. The most frequent land use decisions are typically related to site-specific projects. On the sur- face, this may seem the most important area for a transit agency to focus its attention. However, as the research surveys, interviews, and case studies demonstrate, most individual site-related land use decisionsâsuch as what land uses are allowed where or how much parking to provideâare shaped much earlier in the land use planning process. Regional-, corridor-, and municipal-scale planning decisions typically influence what happens at an individual site. A transit agency will be more effective over the long term by focusing its efforts on influencing longer-term plans and policies that preclude the need to influence the more numerous short- term or site-scale decisions. However, when the transit agency proposes to expand parking or make station improvements, such involvement is inevitable. One of the lessons learned for transit agencies is that this challenge is a little like jugglingâone has to keep an eye on more than one ball at a time. Several possibilities exist for transit service and transit-supportive land use to be shaped by a transit agency within each of the planning components identified in Figure 7-2. Regional planning involves multiple jurisdictions coming together to create a long-range (20+ year) vision for the region that will guide planning at the local level. Regional plans address regional partnerships and policies that foster the efficient placement of settlement, land use activities, infrastructure, and services across areas broader than a single local government. This includes the regional transit network. Planning Processes C H A P T E R 7
Planning Processes 51 Municipal/county planning includes comprehensive plan policies that promote the priori- ties and vision of the city or county. It also includes the associated implementing of land use regulations and guidelines, such as zoning regulations, development guidelines, and minimum density thresholds. Corridor planning can be unique in that it is often the transit agencies themselves that initiate or conduct planning processes that involve the interaction of transit and land use. Typical planning activities include both major capital investments studies and service changes. Subarea planning is for a subset of the municipality/county and provides greater detail as to the desired vision for a specific area. These focus areas typically include neighborhoods, centers, Figure 7-1. Geographic scales of land use decision making. Figure 7-2. Geographic scales of land use planning and corre sponding planning components.
52 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies corridors, or station areas. Subarea plans can provide additional design or land use standards or requirements that are consistent with, and add detail to, the comprehensive plan policies. Site planning includes all aspects of land development on a particular parcel. All develop- ment must have the appropriate permits and must comply with city and county policies for develop ment as well as have adequate provision of service. In the review of land use development applications, municipal governments and counties take into consideration the ability to provide community services (including transit) to the development. Some communities have developed transit-supportive design guidelines to foster improved land use outcomes. Local government processes at the various geographic scales of land use planning vary through- out the country. These planning processes are presented in the remainder of this chapter by the appropriate geographic scale of land use planning. Land use decision making at any scale is inherently political. Transit agencies can increase their effectiveness in influencing land use policies by considering the political dynamics surrounding various land use decisions. These dynamics vary considerably depending on the geographic scale of the decision. Transit agencies typically can be most effective when involved in the larger geographic scales. As land use decisions move toward the site-specific scale, the influence of a transit agency declines, while the influence of local community groups rises. Transit agencies often have more influence at the broader scales of regional, municipal/county, and corridor decisions because the discus- sions tend to be largely among and between government agencies. These high-level decisions also create the broader planning and regulatory context that ultimately will be applied to site- specific land use decisions. Once land use decisions shift to a specific site, community groups hold considerable sway in influencing decisions. Community groups are experts on their com- munity and are highly motivated since they are likely to experience the bulk of impacts related to a development project. Transit Agency Involvement in Land Use Decisions As part of this research, transit agencies were asked in an online survey to consider their opportunities to engage with local governments at four typical land use interaction points: ⢠Long-range planning, ⢠Economic revitalization/neighborhood planning, ⢠Zoning and land use regulation, and ⢠Site development. The majority (93 percent) of transit agency respondents noted that they were invited to par- ticipate in long-range planning, whereas only 33 percent of the transit agency respondents were invited to discussions of zoning and land use regulations. The survey indicated that over 62 percent of transit agencies view long-range planning, such as is typical for the regional and municipal/county scales, as having the biggest influence on long-term transit system performance. The transit agencies felt that they had the most effective interaction opportunities with local government staff and developers during long-range plan- ning. Both local governments and transit agencies noted that the long-range regional/county/ city planning process provided the greatest opportunity for meaningful interactions. Transit agencies that responded to the survey felt that they had the least effective interaction with local governments and developers during the zoning and land use regulation process. Local governments were likely to consult with the transit agency during the long-range planning process as shown in Figure 7-3.
Planning Processes 53 Local governments were also surveyed as part of the research and noted that they were most likely to consult transit agencies on bus and station siting, service availability, and on-site access to transit. Developers were also more likely to contact transit agencies regarding these issues. According to the survey, local governments were most likely to contact transit agencies during the zoning and land use regulation process for those items shown in Figure 7-4(a) and Figure 7-4(b). Regional Planning The regional plan is conducted at the regional scale and is often a 20-year plan that allocates regional land use and employment forecasts to cities and counties within the region. Within the regional context, the plan provides a vision of where and how residential and employment growth should occur. The framework set by the regional plan also guides regionally funded infrastructure improvements such as transportation. The federal government provides a common framework for many aspects of regional planning through the requirements guiding the LRTP. As part of the requirements for federal transporta- tion funding, each region is required to have an LRTP. LRTPs are completed in multiyear cycles and provide an important opportunity for the transit agency to influence transportation land use integration, plans, policies, and funding. The federal government has increased the importance of performance measures in regional planning. To better link transit and land use, areas such as Portland, OR, have shifted from mea- sures focused on conditions (congestion, delay, ridership, air quality) to outcomes (cost of freight delay, job growth, travel time reliability, reduced climate impacts, land consumption, household growth, and affordability) in their RTP updates. Transit Agency Participation in Long-Range Transportation Planning Transit agencies are often invited to participate in long-range transportation planning con- ducted by regional agencies such as MPOs. The LRTP, also known as the metropolitan trans- portation plan (MTP), establishes the 20-year vision for the regional transportation network. The LRTP is a multimodal policy document that incorporates the policies and priorities for automobiles, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, aviation, rail, and freight. Therefore, the LRTP also guides planning for all modes, including future transit investments in the transportation system. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 70% 80% Forecasting demand for transit Strategizing about potential growth corridors Concentrating development in particular areas Land use visioning Comprehensive planning Community/district/neighborhood participation 60% Figure 7-3. Likelihood of local governments to consult with transit agency during the long-range planning process.
54 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies Federal regulations state that the plan shall âinclude both long-range and short-range program strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods.â25 The LRTP process includes identifying potential corridors in which to concentrate further development and growth as well as visioning exercises to identify the type of place that is desired in the future. As part of the development of LRTPs, projections are made on where future popu- lation and employment growth will occur. Various factors influence future land use allocations, such as levels of accessibility to major infrastructure (i.e., high-capacity transit services). Future land use allocations also determine anticipated population and employment densities in specific corridors, which contribute to forecasting demand for transit. Some of the key transit considerations for the LRTP process are: ⢠What is the spatial allocation of future land development? ⢠Do plans to expand services or invest in new fixed-guideway facilities influence the allocation of population and employment growth? ⢠Are projected densities sufficiently high to support cost-effective services and meet thresholds set for the FTA Capital Investment Grant Program? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Review of subdivision or land development plans Development of the zoning ordinance Review of proposed zoning changes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Changes to the transit network Analysis of walkability and access in a redevelopment Consideration of the overall redevelopment plan, which may/may not involve transit-supportive density (a) (b) Figure 7-4. Local governments to consult with transit agency.
Planning Processes 55 Part of the challenge of engaging in regional planning to achieve transit-supportive outcomes can be the breadth of activities undertaken as part of regional planning. Drawing from regions such as Sacramento, CA, that have developed integrated land use and transit-supportive regional plans and policies, transit agencies can consider the following questions to help identify regional planning decision points: ⢠Regional land use vision. Does the regional planning agency (or a generally accepted public or nonprofit group) have a regional land use vision/blueprint plan depicting a way for the region to grow that links land use and transportation? Does the vision include scenario plan- ning that objectively defines cause-and-effect relationships between land use patterns, travel behavior, and external effects such as air quality? ⢠Integrated transportation and land use planning. Is the region seeking to design a transpor- tation system to support transit-supportive growth patterns, including increased housing and transportation options that focus more growth inward instead of outward? Does a regional planning entity provide planning grants to municipalities to better link transportation and land use such as transit-supportive vision plans, Complete Streets, updated zoning codes, or suburban placemaking? ⢠Stakeholder engagement and education. Does the regional planning process actively engage a broad base of decision makers, residents, and stakeholders with the regional land use vision/ results of scenario planning and seek their opinions on how they want their neighborhoods, communities, and region to grow? Is there technical analysis and education to inform pol- icy and decision makers, local staff, and regional stakeholders about the benefits of strategic growth management/transit-supportive development patterns? Has the transit agency, MPO, or an advocacy group developed educational materials to inform local discussionsâparticularly in infill areasâabout neighborhood travel behavior, health, and effects of higher density on traffic, transit, walking, and bicycling? ⢠Multimodal transportation models and design. Do regional transportation models consider active transportation modes (transit, bicycling, walking) in determining travel demand? Does the region have street standards that allow/encourage multimodal street designs for major streets and arterials? ⢠Transit participation. Does the MPO policy board have a transit agency as a voting member? Is a transit agency actively participating on MPO technical committees involved with topics such as funding, the RTP, multimodal planning, and scenario planning? ⢠Best practices. Has the region developed a regional toolbox identifying and encouraging the best practices to link transit and land use? Does the toolbox include plans to calm streets to encourage active transportation modes? ⢠Funding to support transportation land use priorities. Has the funding section of the regional transportation plan increased the share of federal funding devoted to transit and other active transportation modes? The Indy Connect Plan is a typical LRTP.26 The map from the plan in Figure 7-5 shows the long-range planning design without final transit stops represented. The plan illustrates a network of multimodal connectivity that serves small, outer-ring communities while providing access downtown to the transit center. The TIP is an outgrowth of the LRTP. The TIP identifies the transportation projects and strate- gies that will be implemented over the next 4 years. The TIP is a fiscally constrained list of proj- ects, meaning that it includes priority projects based on the estimated cost of the projects and the anticipated available federal, state, and local funds. In order to receive federal funding, the project must be listed in the TIP. The TIP does not include all projects listed in the LRTP and is updated, at a minimum, every 4 years. Once the TIP is approved by the MPO policy board, it is forwarded to the state for incorporation into the STIP and for governor approval. Transit agencies that are
56 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies involved in the MPO decision-making processes have more opportunities to obtain funding for their capital projects. The UPWP is the planning work program of the MPO. It covers a 1- to 2-year period and identifies the planning priorities and activities for the MPO region. The UPWP includes a description of the work to be done, desired outcomes, timeframe, budget, source of funding, and entities responsible for completion of the work. These programs often include regional mobility needs assessments, corridor and subarea systems planning studies, federally required plans and programs, and database/forecasting methodology, as well as analysis thereof. The MPO is not necessarily responsible for carrying out the planning studies and programs; however, they must be identified in the UPWP to receive funding from the FTA or FHWA. Municipal/County Planning Municipal and county plans and policies are most responsible for shaping land use. The major tools used by municipalities and counties are comprehensive plans, area plans, and zoning codes (discussed in the following bullet points). Transit agencies can influence the development and Source: The Indy Connect Initiative (http://www.indyconnect.org/pages/Long-Range-Map/default.aspx). Figure 7-5. Typical LRTP.
Planning Processes 57 application of comprehensive plans, small-area plans, and the related policies and zoning codes so that they give appropriate consideration to transit. In addition, transit agencies can argue for changes in land use policies before agreeing to provide service. Transit agencies have an oppor- tunity to partner with local governments and should ask to be involved in land use planning activities. ⢠Comprehensive plans, which give a generalized picture of how the city will grow and evolve over time using a combination of policies and maps. ⢠Area plans, which are used at a smaller scale to zoom in to a defined area. The City of Denver explains that area plans âaddress the issues of a portion of the municipality. Small-area plans can cover three different geographic scalesâneighborhood, corridor, and district regardless of the size of the area.â27 ⢠Zoning codes, which zoom in further and define what land uses are permitted on a site and the dimensions of land use in terms of size, height, lot area, floor density, setbacks, and other requirements. Transportation plans establish a coordinated network of transportation facilities to serve state, regional, and local transportation needs. The transportation plan should include a public transit plan that identifies existing and future transit routes, exclusive transit rights-of-way, and exclusive transit facilities such as transit centers, major transit stops, and park-and-rides. It should also include land use and design elements that support efficient transit service. Local governments should coordinate with transit agencies to identify existing conditions such as routes, ridership levels, facilities, and service deficiencies on existing routes (based on service standards). In addi- tion to coordination with staff, the transit agencyâs public transportation plan may be a helpful resource for local governments. Land use and transportation standards and guidelines implement the policies set out in the comprehensive plan. Since transit typically requires pedestrian travel on both ends of the transit trip, it is imperative that local standards and guidelines allow for transit facilities to be integrated into the desired physical design of the community. Pedestrian-supportive standards and guidelines establish safe access to and from transit routes and provide connectivity to key destinations. Transit Agency Involvement with Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Comprehensive land use plans provide an overall vision and future direction for how a com- munity wants to develop. The plan addresses land use elements such as the urban form, type and mix of land uses, and connectivity, all of which have a direct impact on transit service. Transit agencies can add to the discussion by providing guidance as to how urban form affects the loca- tion, type, and frequency of transit service. The comprehensive plan also includes a transportation element that often covers regional transportation, congestion management, auto mobility, tran- sit, the pedestrian/bicycle network, and parking. It is essential that a local government prepare a comprehensive plan with the inclusion of the transit agency in order to produce a plan that effectively integrates transit service within the various plan elements. Conducted at the local government level (e.g., county, city, town, or village), comprehensive planning presents a communityâs goals and aspirations for the built and natural environment. The comprehensive plan is the framework that guides future growth and development in the city or county; it contains policies, goals, and objectives that apply to the entire jurisdiction. While fairly broad in scope, key elements of a comprehensive plan include both land use and transpor- tation components. This long-range land use planning process identifies how land will be used in the future, whether for residential, employment, or civic uses. In addition to identifying the
58 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies different uses of the land, the land use planning process can guide the scale and design of develop- ment to best address the goals of individual communities with regard to economic development and livability. All public service plans and subarea land use plans and policies must be consistent with the policies outlined in the comprehensive plan. Economic development, redevelopment, and trans- portation plans for the local government (county or municipality) are intended to implement the comprehensive plans. In addition, zoning decisionsânew classifications, rezonings, and amendmentsâare made by local governments as they implement long-range comprehensive plans. Zoning influences develop- ment through the regulation of the types of land uses, densities, and on-site provisions (such as parking requirements). The minimum and maximum allowable density requirements of zoning ordinances directly relate to the viability of transit service. Transit agencies can get involved in community planning by reviewing zoning amendments as they relate to transit. In order to avoid the lengthy process of creating zoning overlays to accommodate transit projects, transit agencies can collaborate with planning departments to guide the base zoning determinations along existing and potential transit corridors. In addition, zoning ordinance development and updates may include identifying the appro- priate land use zones to allow the siting of transit centers or stations, park-and-ride locations, and transit shelters. In cases where the allowance may be conditional, the transit agency may be asked (or may choose) to provide input regarding standards for development. Transit agencies will also have the responsibility of educating land use planners and developers at the community level about viable density for types of transit. When participating in comprehensive planning and in zoning decisions, transit agencies can use the research regarding the 5 Ds of land use presented in the following bullet points and Appendix A to better focus on what to ask for when working with other stakeholders: ⢠Density is determined to be of moderate importance; ⢠Diversity in land uses is found to be of lesser importance; ⢠Design of the streets, particularly grid-like street patterns, is second in importance; ⢠Destination accessibility is found to be of lesser importance; and ⢠Distance to transit is the most important factor influencing transit ridership. These factors are always important, but the order may change based on local conditions. The APTA Standards Development Urban Design (SUDS) Working Groupâs Defining Transit Areas of Influence provides guidance on delineating spatial areas that are most likely to have land use and development impacts on increasing ridership and density near existing or proposed transit sta- tions or stops.28 This guidance from APTA may be considered when discussing land use decisions surrounding transit. Relating Zoning and Service Standards The minimum and maximum allowable density requirements of zoning ordinances directly relate to the viability of transit service. However, few local governments are aware of or take into consideration what a transit agency believes to be the minimum viable density for various forms of transit. Many transit agencies have service standards related to transit system design and performance. Transit agencies can explain to local governments that are considering zoning amendments how these provisions provide a blueprint for transit planners to consider requests for new or modified service (both extensions and cutbacks). Local governments are also likely to be unaware that many transit agencies periodically evaluate existing routes against performance systems to ensure an efficient and cost-effective service network.
Planning Processes 59 It also may be useful to explain that one of the key elements in transit planning is service avail- ability, which is the passengerâs ability to access and use transit. In considering availability, the aim of a transit agency is to not over- or under-serve any one area. Among the primary typical service characteristics are population and employment density. Obviously, the higher the density and the greater the diversity of uses within the typical walking distance of a stop or station, the higher the transit market potential. However, as discussed previously, variables such as distance to transit and design of the street network are even more important factors to incorporate into service standards. Comprehensive Plans Are Infrequent Opportunities Comprehensive plans and land use zoning codes are infrequently updated, which gives transit agencies limited opportunities to influence them. Decades can pass between updates of zoning codes and comprehensive plans, leading to development decisions being shaped by conventional suburban codes that require auto-oriented development patterns. A few recent examples help to underscore this point. The 2014 City of Los Angeles zoning code rewrite starts by noting that when âthe current zoning code for the City was written in 1946, Harry Truman was president, World War II had just ended, and the population of the City was just under two million (roughly half what it is today).â29 On a similar note, Washington, D.C.; Baltimore; Buffalo; and New York City were mentioned in a 2012 Washington Post article as examples of cities rewriting outdated zoning codes predicated on the carsâ âuniversal use as the principal means of transportation.â30 The article noted that Washingtonâs âzoning code was last overhauled in 1958, when urban planning was consumed with how to adapt large cities to the automobile.â Waiting five or six decades to rewrite a comprehensive plan or land use zoning codes may well be the exception instead of the rule. Even though these opportunities seldom arise, getting transit agencies to the table as effective partners when rewrites occur is critical. In addition, smaller-scale plans such as those discussed in the Subarea Planning section may provide more frequent opportunities for transit agencies. Figure 7-6 shows a portion of the transit element of a typical comprehensive plan. Assessing the Transit Supportiveness of Plans and Policies The transit supportiveness of local plans, policies, and codes can cover a broad continuum depending on how the language is written. It is one thing to allow development to be transit supportive; it is quite another to require it to be transit supportive. For some communities beginning to understand the importance of transit-oriented land use plans, allowing develop- ment to be transit supportive sends a positive signal. However, experience shows that requiring transit-supportive land uses is often necessary for realizing transit-friendly results. When determining its strategy for working with municipalities, a transit agency can benchmark where the municipality stands on the continuum of transit supportiveness. In simple terms, this is how far the municipality has gone (or how far it is willing to go) in writing its plans, policies, and zoning codes along this continuum: ⢠Level 1: allowing transit-supportive development to happen, ⢠Level 2: encouraging transit-supportive development, ⢠Level 3: incentivizing transit-supportive development, and ⢠Level 4: requiring transit-supportive development. A transit agency can move its assessment to another level by considering factors such as the quality of transit service, community attitudes, development community experience, and the
60 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies pattern of development. All of these serve to shape how far a municipality is likely to proceed with linking transit and land use policies. By researching further, the transit agency can look at some key factors that can help determine the transit friendliness of municipality codes and poli- cies. For instance: ⢠Have zoning codes been updated to allow development that is consistent with transit-supportive development principles (a defined center, density higher than the community average, a mix of uses, limited and managed parking, compact and oriented toward pedestrians) along frequent transit corridors? ⢠Are transit-supportive uses allowed as an outright permitted use at most major transit stops, or would a developer be required to take an extra step and seek discretionary approval? ⢠Do the codes, plans, and capital improvement programs give attention to creating walkable placesârequiring sidewalks, calming major streets, and requiring designs that orient buildings to the street? ⢠Do the land use plans and zoning codes emphasize centers and corridors? ⢠Do the land use plans and zoning codes focus density and a mix of uses along major transit streets? ⢠Do municipal or county plans and policies encourage development proposals that support high-quality transit service? ⢠Have parking requirements been updated? For example, have minimum parking require- ments replaced maximum requirements? Source: City of Albuquerque, NM. Figure 7-6. Typical comprehensive plan transit element.
Planning Processes 61 Corridor Planning In their studies of major capital investments and service changes, transit agencies conduct planning processes that involve the interaction of transit and land use. Local governments are typically first brought into discussions about land uses surrounding new planned transit projects during initial planning/visioning and evaluation of alternatives. The focus of this coordination is typically data collection, choosing locations for proposed stations, and planning/visioning for station areas (see Figure 7-7). Transit agencies and local governments are brought together via the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants program, which is administered by the FTA. The program provides funding for the establishment of new rail or busway projects and is commonly referred to as New Starts/ Small Starts funding. The New Starts/Small Starts grant program is the FTAâs primary funding source for major transit capital investments, including heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, com- muter rail, and ferries. The FTA is required by law to evaluate and rate all transit projects seeking Section 5309 grant funding from that agency. Two key criteria of this evaluation are land use and economic development, which directly shape land use decisions surrounding transit projects at the local level. Transit Agency Involvement in Corridor Planning Major transit corridor investments provide some of the best opportunities for a transit agency/ project sponsor to take a leadership role in linking transit, land use planning, and development. Land use considerations have increasingly become important aspects of corridor studies and pro- vide an opportunity to explicitly explore multiple facets of the transit and land use relationship. Transit projects frequently include a land use planning element that can range from scenario plan- ning to the development of detailed land use plans reflecting strategies to mitigate project impacts or to capitalize on the city-shaping opportunities flowing from the transportation investment. An often-overlooked aspect of corridor studies is that federal transportation funds can be used to pay for land use planning related to the transportation project. Communities such as Columbus, OH; Los Angeles, CA; MiamiâDade County, FL; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; and Seattle, WA, have used transit project development funds to pay for land use planning activities Figure 7-7. Map from a typical corridor plan.
62 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies at the scale of the corridor and individual station areas at various stages of project development.31 This can be an important opportunity for transit agencies seeking to influence land use. Opportunities in Corridor Planning One factor of the transportation land use equation is that while transportation agencies face budget pressures, they tend to have more financial resources than local land use planning agencies. Consequently, there is an opportunity to provide transportation funds to support land use planning and to develop policies and regulations that are more transit friendly, which can be important in shaping land use in a transit-supportive manner. In some instances, transit agencies provide funding directly to municipalities to pay for TOD- related planning as part of major transit investments. Los Angeles Metro has the largest program; between 2011 and 2014, Metro awarded $21,000,000 to local governments for TOD planning.32 The Los Angeles Transit-Oriented Development Planning Grant Program is designed to spur the adoption of local land use regulations that support TOD. Goals for the program include to: ⢠Increase access to transit by assisting local governments in accelerating the adoption of TOD regulatory frameworks, ⢠Improve utilization of public transit by reducing the number of modes of transportation necessary to access regional and local transit, ⢠Further the reduction of greenhouse gases through encouraging transit use and infill develop- ment along transit corridors, and ⢠Support and implement sustainable development principles.33 Corridor planning also presents another opportunity to incorporate community develop ment goals such as household affordability, access to employment, education, health and community services, and sustainability into transit improvements. In turn, this can provide an opportunity for nontraditional partners such as not-for-profits, community development organizations, phi- lanthropies, and major institutions to become involved and reinforce transit-supportive land use outcomes. It may also provide an opportunity for multiple municipalities to work together to shape land uses. Optimally, leveraging transit and land use should to be a two-way street. Major transit invest- ments need to be designed with land use in mind. In the same way, land use investments need to consider transit. As illustrated by the Cleveland HealthLine case study, there is now clear evidence that high-capacity transit projects can be both for moving people and for shaping the community. Taking a âdevelopment-oriented transitâ approach, as Portland describes it, requires balancing both aspects throughout the transit facility design, corridor selection, and station location deci- sions to optimize transit operations, community fit, urban design, and economic development. Roadway improvements and management projects can also provide an opportunity for transit agencies to influence land use. In particular, the move toward Complete Streets in recent years has created an opportunity to better integrate transit and land use in the design and execution of transportation projects. By considering land use, transit, pedestrians, and bikes in facility design, Compete Streets shift the thought process to achieve outcomes that better link transit and land use as a matter of course. The Red Line alternatives analysis conducted in Indianapolis provides an early example of a strong partnership. In the planning phase, the Indianapolis MPO, IndyGo (the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation), and the Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority (CIRTA) formed a management team to oversee the analysis and to implement the projectâs pub- lic involvement plan.34 The partnership produced a recommended alternative, including mode, route, service plan, station locations, priority treatment, and branding. The FTA land use criteria were used to screen alternatives and to select the preferred alternative. This approach enabled the
Planning Processes 63 project sponsor to identify which land use plans and policies needed to be prepared in the project development phase to make a competitive grant application. Subarea Planning While still long-range plans, subarea and district plans (see Figure 7-8) begin to narrow the land use and transit planning focus down to a smaller geographic location, such as downtown areas, special districts, or designated neighborhoods. At this level of planning, local governments may seek transit agency input on: ⢠Realigning transit service to serve new land uses, ⢠Making last-mile connections with bicycle/pedestrian strategies, ⢠Providing input into redevelopment plans and locations of high ridership districts (such as mixed-use, entertainment, and employment districts), ⢠Assessing the impact on transit service, and ⢠Forming potential partnerships to finance redevelopment districts and other value-capture options. Figure 7-8. Typical subarea plan.
64 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies Subarea plans can be created for both greenfield developments and urban infill projects. While the physical and economic landscapes will provide a variety of land use opportunities and transit needs, the transit agency can play an integral role in either type of subarea planning. Transit Agency Involvement with Subarea Planning Given the broad spectrum of municipality involvement with land use, there is no one-size- fits-all approach for how transit agencies should get involved. While complete rewrites of zoning codes and comprehensive plans may happen infrequently, the opportunity to help shape land use plans, codes, and policy more often presents itself at a smaller scale. Communities use many namesâsmall-area, neighborhood, district, station-area, and sector plansâto describe these more geographically focused plans. Planning at this scale often translates directly into site-level development regulations that will help determine whether development is transit-supportive. Depending on how they are structured, these planning processes provide transit agencies with an excellent opportunity to get involved in shaping policy and guiding regulations cutting across land use and transportation. As highlighted in the case studies, NJ TRANSITâs Transit Friendly Planning Land Use and Development Program funds vision plans that contribute to the prepa- ration of station areas by local municipalities. Transit agencies have a particular stake in redevelopment that serves traditional, more transit- dependent neighborhoods. Given the number of stakeholders typically involved in redevelop- ment (local and state agencies, lenders and financiers, developers, nongovernment organizations, and charitable organizations), the question is: Do transit agencies have an effective voice in the collaborative decision-making process? A station-area plan is typically a collaborative undertaking between transit agencies that deliver bus and rail services and local governments that control zoning and land use decisions. Transit agencies often work through local planning agencies to generate station-area plans, sometimes providing funding assistance, as has been the case in Portland, OR, and Santa Clara County, CA.35 In perhaps the largest program of its kind, Los Angeles Metro has provided planning grants for TOD to local governments since 2012. Several states and MPOs provide funding support for station-area planning. These include New Jersey, Maryland, Oregon, and California and the MPOs in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and the San Francisco area. A number of U.S. cities are termed as âshrinking citiesâ due to population and employment loss. Shrinking cities exhibit both declining and decentralizing populations. Extensive areas of vacant land are the most visible indicator of a declining economy and deter real estate investment. The 2009 Central Maryland TOD Strategy identifies vacant buildings, abandonments, and other forms of disinvestments as major obstacles to promoting urban TODs.36 Another key challenge for local governments and transit agencies in shrinking cities is right-sizing the community infra- structure and services, including the transit network. Transit agencies in shrinking cities face the issue of ensuring that areas prioritized for economic revitalization investment and activity are aligned with transit routes. Bus routes can be modified to retain service to the remaining residents and reduce service to areas of greatest population loss. On the surface, it may seem that the easiest solution is for the transit agency to adapt on fixed routes by offering less frequent service. Ironically though, the demand for public transit could increase in shrinking cities as populations exhibit high levels of poverty and lower-than-average rates of car ownership. This results in a higher percentage of people who rely on transit. Thus, tran- sit agencies are challenged to consider whether expansions in public transport might reduce the need for private vehicle use in cost-effective ways. Regardless, changes in service must be coordi- nated closely with local governments as demographic factors have significant impact on transit use.
Planning Processes 65 Site Development Planning Local governments make land use and development decisions to advance community goals or in response to site-specific developer proposals. These decisions can have a significant influence on existing transit services or the prospects of new services and yet are often reached without full consideration of the communityâs potential to affect or benefit from transit connections. Many transit agencies or local governments offer or apply design guidelines to influence site design out- comes. Site development planning provides unique opportunities for transit agencies to engage with developers and local land use officials. Figure 7-9 shows a typical site plan schematic. Additionally, site design challenges differ by development typeâemployment centers, shopping centers, residential communities, and mixed-use projectsâpartly because the demand for transit (including time of day) varies. The approach to land use and transit coordination may differ for some transit agencies depending on the mode of transit (e.g., rail, bus rapid transit, or bus). For transit around fixed-guideway projects, planning or the coordination of land use is often more proactive and intentional than around conventional bus routes, which are typically planned on a site-by-site basis. The City of San Diego has a formalized process for planning coordination to include all high-quality transit, including buses (particularly bus rapid transit). In Durham, NC, coordination is based on distance of a project to a station area. The CityâCounty Planning Department notifies Triangle Transit if potential site-development projects are within a half-mile radius of a transit-oriented development station area. Figure 7-9. Typical site plan schematic.
66 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies Transit Agency Involvement with Site Development Transit agencies, local governments, and developers were asked in the research survey to characterize the extent of transit agency involvement in site development decisions: ⢠Transit agencies viewed site development as having the greatest influence on transit operations (47 percent), followed by long-range planning (33 percent). ⢠The type of site development affects the likelihood of whether the transit agency will be engaged by the local government. Local governments are most likely to consult transit agencies when developing commercial or mixed-use centers (89 percent) and multifamily residential develop- ments (62 percent). For these types of development, local governments typically first consult with transit agencies before the permitting/site planning stages. Transit agencies were consulted the least for single-family subdivision site design (35 percent). ⢠Most transit agencies reported that they were typically first consulted about site design either before permitting or during the site planning stage (71 percent). About 10 percent of respon- dents were consulted either after the permitting stage or on realization that patrons or residents of a development lacked access to transit facilities. ⢠Most transit agencies were consulted for bus and transit stop locations (81 percent), reviewing site plans for proposed TOD areas (60 percent), and service availability (56 percent). ⢠It is unlikely that engagement with the transit agency will be initiated by a developer for market- rate single-family housing (subdivisions). Of these projects, transit agencies had the least amount of involvement with street layout in new subdivisions (30 percent were consulted), on-site access (36 percent), and last-mile connections (38 percent). ⢠In general, developers believe that transit is an important aspect when developing mixed- use, multifamily, and affordable housing projects. The majority of respondents (69 percent) indicated that during the project development process, they first communicated with transit providers during the early stages of site planning. The best opportunities for a transit agency to actively participate in planning a private develop- ment are during the conceptual and predevelopment stages prior to the developer securing land use approvals (i.e., entitlements) during the development stage. An important concern at the site scale is whether a development proposal has progressed well into the development stage, typically beyond the point where the developer is likely to be open to changes in the project. The Pace Suburban Bus Serviceâs Transit Supportive Guidelines and Design Review Assistance for Transit discussed in the case studies demonstrate two tools used to open the door to early discussions with private developers.37 As part of site development reviews, transit agencies may be asked to comment on service availability, including the siting of bus stops, shelters and transit stations, and last-mile con- nections to transit service. Depending on the size of the land use proposal, transit agencies may comment on the street layout and on-site access for the development. It is important for transit agencies to get involved early in the development process of major subdivisions and real estate projects to influence project site design. Engaging early in the conver- sation can influence road designs, parking siting, internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and the placement of bus stops, transportation hubs, and the like. Transit agency involvement should not be an afterthought but rather an integral, up-front part of the project conceptualiza- tion and design process. Developers understand that local community groups such as neighborhood associations can have a considerable impact on the creation of development proposals and the selection of the developer at a site-specific level. Gaining the communityâs support for a transit-supportive project from the onset of a project is an opportunity for the transit agency and the developer
Planning Processes 67 to collaborate early on. The transit agency and the developer may share a common objective of desiring higher density/more intensive development on a site in the face of community concerns about localized impacts. By incorporating a transit-supportive design, the developer may be able to demonstrate to the municipality how many of the perceived impacts can be addressed in the face of community concerns. Participating in Site-Specific Decisions Transit agencies that participate in a site-specific land use decision should understand the perspectives of three key stakeholders involved in a typical decision: the developer, the local com- munity, and the municipal/county government. Municipal site-specific land use decisions typi- cally occur at three levels, depending on the size and type of development proposal and the local governmentâs specific approval process: ⢠Level 1: Planning staff; ⢠Level 2: Planning staff and board/commission; and ⢠Level 3: Planning staff, board/commission, and municipal or county board/council. Professional local planning staff conduct development review of the developersâ proposal. Development review staff evaluate how a site-based proposal fits into the existing plans, policies, and strategies of the municipality. The review process can start with a pre-application meeting between the local planning staff and the developer to provide feedback on the development proposal. This may result in the developer adjusting the proposal to ensure a smoother approval process once its proposal is submitted. Altering development plans to satisfy the community and local decision makers during this early stage is in the best interest of the developer. Staff will then prepare a staff report and recommendations to the planning commission reflecting to what extent the development proposal conforms to existing plans and policies. Transit agency staff should comprehend the perspective of the development review staff and help them understand a transit agencyâs perspective, particularly at the pre-application stage if possible. If transit-supportive land use policies have already been adopted, the transit agency may not need to be directly involved in the development review process, as was the case with the Pearl District case study. Transit agencies may also need to be prepared to explain to local planning staff the operating costs of serving new developments. The transit agency, the community, and the developers need to reach agreement on the type, frequency, and operating hours of transit service. The stakeholders also need to reach agreement on who will pay for the service. The planning board/commission is made up of a cross-section of citizens who donate their time and have been appointed by the municipality/county. Like the planning staff, it takes a broader, long-range view of development and considers land use issues in light of the commu- nity as a whole. Citizens and neighborhood associations will typically receive notice of meetings and the details regarding the development proposal. In many instances, a letter in support or opposition of a project from an official neighborhood organization can carry weight with the commission. The commission meetings are public, and at the meetings, the commission takes testimony and makes recommendations on whether to approve a development proposal and what, if any, conditions to impose. The commissionâs comments may result in the developer adjusting its proposal and coming back to the commission. The municipal or county board/council of local elected officials will approve or reject the project after receiving the recommendations of the planning commission. The board/council typically takes a nuanced view, balancing community-wide concerns and the views of its constit- uents. Like the planning commission, the board/council will hold hearings. It is not obligated to
68 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies adhere to the planning commissionâs recommendation. The final decision as to whether a develop- ment will be approved rests with these elected officials; consequently, political considerations may also influence how they cast their vote. Community Involvement In regard to site-specific land use decisions, Saint et al. note that âMore and more citizens have found that when they unite, organize, and commit to fight developers and investors at the local political level, they can and do win. Over time, they have become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques. A prolonged fight against a well-funded, organized and committed NIMBY (not in my back yard) citizen group can cost a developer tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and even prevent them from building at all.â38 Transit agencies can be more effective at the site-specific scale when their concerns align with citizen groups and/or the local planning agency staff. For example, citizens concerned about local traffic may favor a development project that follows transit-supportive design principles, resulting in a reduction of traffic. Transit agencies can also increase their effectiveness by aligning with a developer to help con- vey the benefits of projects that are transit supportive. However, the benefits of these projects should be presented thoughtfully to citizen groups since citizen groups across the country have opposed many higher-density transit-supportive projects, in part because they were concerned about the increased traffic impacts on their neighborhood. California reformed its landmark state environmental law (the California Environmental Quality Act) because citizens were using the law to hinder efforts to increase infill, transit-oriented development, bicycle plans, and affordable housing, among other things. Transit-Supportive Guidelines At the site scale, transit-supportive design guidelines can help influence the creation of site and precinct plans, particularly in terms of influencing standards and designs for new subdivisions, mixed-use neighborhoods, and master-planned communities. The applicability of such guidelines for creating transit-supportive outcomes is discussed in the following. Transit-supportive land use and design guidelines provided by transit agencies have the most to offer in the creation of site plans, particularly in terms of influencing standards and designs for new subdivisions and master-planned communities. Typically, recommendations are provided on the siting of parking lots, building setbacks and orientations, minimum walking distances to bus stops, integration with connecting roads and access points, on-site road designs to accommodate buses, and elimination of pedestrian access barriers such as perimeter walls and berms. Large transit agencies, particularly those with rail operations, often suggest minimum residential densities in station areas. For example, the San Franciscoâs Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system calls for a minimum of 40 units per acre for individual multifamily housing projects and an overall station-area average of 20 units per gross acre.39 Many guidelines also call for station-area zoning that reduces minimum parking levels. Some transit agencies, such as the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), have created station typologies, suggesting different urban design approaches and some- times different standards (for example, minimum residential densities and parking levels) for each.40 Some guidelines can be characterized as land planning/urban design manuals with a transit orientation. These provide suggestions and illustrations for designing more compact, mixed-use development that is pedestrian friendly and easily accessible to transit. Other guidelines function more as transit facility design manuals that aim to ensure efficient operation of buses, paying secondary attention to land planning and urban design. Thus, the former emphasizes the needs
Planning Processes 69 of transit users accessing the system, while the latter stresses the needs of the transit operator running the system.41 Local transit agencies can advocate for the formal inclusion of some design standards that would help favor transit-oriented land use policies in official land use and zoning laws. Since land use decisions are ultimately the purview of local governments, the guidelines are meant to influence the thinking and practices of local planning agencies as much as private developers. Design standards embraced by most U.S. transit agencies are similar to those set by new urban- ists and other advocates of less car-oriented built environments. The grid of city blocks with an interconnected network of sidewalks and bikeways and a healthy mix of land uses helps create a 24/7 place (one that generates transit trips at night and on weekends). The MARTA Transit- Oriented Development Guidelines, for example, make the point that mixed-use projects help fill trains and buses in off-peak periods, thus increasing transitâs daily load factors and fare-box recovery rates. MARTA encourages the use of TOD overlay districts to intermix land uses so as to generate all-day/all-week transit trips in transit-served corridors.42 Increasingly, design guidelinesâincluding those from Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, and Austinâpromote place- making, arguing for high-quality, human-scale designs that make transit stations neighborhood centerpieces. Interestingly, based on the surveys conducted during this research, local governments find guidebooks/guidelines more effective than do transit agencies. This may result from the fact that local governments have the authority to enforce land use guidelines or reinforce policies using land use development and zoning codes. Forty-one percent of transit agency survey respondents have a guidebook or policy related to transit and land use coordination. These guidebooks have mostly been placed on websites, with printed copies available for distribution. The majority of those with guidebooks have seen policies/procedures recommended by the guidebook adopted by local jurisdictions (64 percent). Likewise, the majority of local government respondents have design/development policy guide- lines to support transit-supportive land uses (approximately 71 percent). These local governments view the guidelines as being somewhat effective (approximately 63 percent). As for developers, approximately half (48 percent) of developer respondents were provided with guidelines for transit-supportive design/land use by their local transit agency, and few (24 percent) have any sort of internal guidelines concerning coordination of transit with development projects. Transit Agency Site Development In some instances, such as for a new parking facility or bus transfer facility, the transit agency may find itself issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) to directly solicit a developerâs involvement. Each RFP released by a transit agency will have been crafted to meet multiple policy goals that will address necessary conditions for design, uses, and restrictions. Transit agencies may also have land holdings near existing or proposed transit stations that they can sell or lease to private developers to create superb TOD destinations. These situations allow transit agencies to have a much more direct impact on the land use decisions surrounding transit on a site-based level. While still collaborating with developers, often through a competitive selection process, the transit agency has control over the development and design guidelines for the site, which it can detail in their initial RFP. Private developers may be interested in partnering with transit agen- cies on agency-owned sites to gain access to land at a discounted rate through the deal structure or access to competitive transit-oriented funds that may be available at the local or state level. In increasingly urban areas, land owned by a transit agency near an existing or proposed station is highly desired by developers.
70 Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies In such instances, there are questions that a transit agency may ask itself before issuing an RFP to developers. ⢠Has the transit agency built a network of supportive partners to achieve the desired outcome? ⢠Has the transit agency consulted with the local government and community early in the plan- ning process to understand potential concerns? ⢠Has the transit agency clearly articulated the benefits to the community for the proposed improvement? ⢠Is there already some positive discussion (a buzz) at the policy or community level about the potential benefits of the proposed transit agency project? ⢠Has the transit agency sought to mitigate impacts to the community and help to resolve other community issues (e.g., co-locate another community facility in the proposed transit agency project)? ⢠Are community groups such as neighborhood associations likely to be supportive of the tran- sit agency proposal? ⢠Are there major obstacles/barriers to successfully achieving a transit-supportive decision? ⢠Has the transit agency proposal progressed well into the development stage, typically beyond a point where the transit agency is likely to be open to changes in the project? ⢠Is the transit agencyâs proposal generally consistent with current land use and zoning plans (e.g., comprehensive plan, neighborhood plan, station-area plan)? ⢠Does the municipality/county have a track record of encouraging/requiring transit-supportive outcomes? ⢠Is the appropriate municipality/county (staff, planning commission, city council) likely to be supportive of the transit agencyâs desired outcome? Many rail transit agencies throughout the United States pursue joint development of property owned by the transit agency, such as leasing air rights above or around stations. Often, a property development department or real estate division within the transit agency oversees joint develop- ment activities. In recent years, transit agencies in San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; and Denver have leased or sold land previously used for parking to private development and applied some of the proceeds to pay for replacement structured parking. Some transit agencies, such as those in Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; and Portland, have taken to selling extra land holdings to private interests to promote TOD. For instance, WMATA formed a real estate office early in the organizationâs existence that has, over time, amassed a large portfolio of land holdings. Rather than waiting and reacting to developer proposals, WMATAâs real estate office aggressively seeks out mutually advantageous transit joint development opportunities.43 WMATAâs preferred means of recapturing value cre- ated through transit investments has been through long-term, unsubordinated ground leases with private developers.
