`

Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2002). Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

This report summarizes relevant literature written about TOD as of 2002, concluding with a brief literature review and annotated bibliography. The authors present local, state, and federal regulatory TOD friendly framework, analyzing successful programs across the United States. The report evaluates supportive policies, programs, and guidelines in detail. Additionally, it delineates financing, tax incentives, and funding strategies used in successful TOD markets. Finally, it describes general principles of TOD urban design, density, and scale in the built environment, identifying major components contributing to TOD.

Cervero defines TJD as "Any formal agreement or arrangement between a public transit agency and a private individual or organization that involves either private-sector payments to the public entity or private-sector sharing of capital costs in mutual recognition of the enhanced real estate development potential or market potential created by the siding of a public transit facility".TOD and TJD essentially strive to achieve the same goal of creating transit focused development, but differ in what scales they are typically implemented. TOD tends to include multiple city blocks and neighborhoods whereas TJD is more site and project specific. Usually, TJD is a public and private partnership created to achieve TOD with public agencies usually consisting of local governments and or transit agencies and the private sector being perceptive real estate developers. These types of partnerships are sometimes necessary to share costs of capital infrastructure, station connection fees, or land acquisition for TOD purposes. The private sector is incentivized by empirical evidence of higher rents and additional dense leasable units that are associated with development in close proximity to transit. Specifically, the report analyzes various ways TJDs can be organized or structured. Revenue-sharing arrangements and cost-sharing arrangements are the two sides of the TJD coin. Examples of revenue sharing include land leases, air rights development, station connection fees, concession leases, and benefit assessment districts. Cost sharing examples include construction costs, density-bonuses (incentive-agreements), and joint use of infrastructure.

Multiple Programs

Benefit Assessment

Incentive Agreements

Station Interface

Concessions

Station Development

Cost-Sharing

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent of Joint Development Programs

Percent of Joint Development Programs

*Percentages sum to more than 100 percent since many programs involved multiple forms of joint development. (Figure 1.)

Another major incentive to engage developers is for local governments to implement sliding-scale impact fee adjustments for TOD projects into their development policies. This is a very real possibility with projects that already have existing efficient transit infrastructure and has proved to be an attractive incentive for developers. Since a fundamental result of TOD is a reduction of vehicle miles traveled, Santa Clara County created criteria for traffic impact fee reductions for TOD projects.

Recommended Impact Fee Adjustments in Santa Clara County, California Trip Reduction Strategy Maximum Trip ReductionMixed-use Development ProjectWith housing and retail components 13% off the smaller trip generatorWith hotel and retail components 10% off the smaller trip generatorWith housing and employment 3% off the smaller trip generatorWith employment and employee-serving retail 3% off employment componentLocation Within 2,000-Foot Walk of Transit FacilityHousing near LRT or Caltrain Station 9%Housing near a Major Bus Stop 2%Employment near LRT or Caltrain Station 3%Employment near a Major Bus Stop 2%*(Table 5.)

Cervero, R. (1998). The Transit Metropolis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

The text gives a global perspective on successful transit-development case studies. Divided into four major types of transit metropolises, the book examines adaptive cities, adaptive transit, strong-core cities, and hybrids-adaptive cities and adaptive transit. Adaptive cities create transit-oriented built form through unique planning and development strategies. Adaptive cities with adaptive transit, hybrids, define cities and their transit systems as an evolving unit, constantly striving to accommodate one another. Strong-core cities have revitalized city centers, complemented by efficient transit. Adaptive transit cities have tailored their transit systems to serve the urban city cores as well as suburban development. Cervero's case study analyses present a broad spectrum of applicable policies, guidelines, and regulations used to implement TOD all over the world.

NOT SURE WE NEED TO NOTATE THIS SOURCE BECAUSE WE COVERING THIS AUTHOR'S MORE RECENT LITERATURE WHICH COVERS THE RELAVENT INFO IN THIS OLDER TEXT.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Washington D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

"Context Sensitive Solutions" (CSS) takes a multi-disciplinary approach in planning and designing transportation and human ecosystems at the urban thoroughfare scale. The extensive report identifies specific transportation design guidelines that safely accommodate urban pedestrian traffic. The graphic format of the guidelines allows the reader to get a strong physical design scope of urban thoroughfare policies and principles. Graphic examples discussed include intersections, parking, sidewalks, roadway design, building heights, and setbacks. The report also includes complex traffic signal and roadway engineering design guidelines used when designing urban thoroughfares.

TYPOLOGY REFERENCE

Bertolini, L., Curtis, C., & Renne, J. L. (Eds.). (2009). Transit Oriented Development: Making It Happen. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

This book outlines empirical strategies to establish TOD in urban development patterns. Variable TOD project examples provide an array of guidance for planners implementing TOD policies and guidelines into their regulations. The two main challenges for implementing TOD are integrating land use and transport changes. The authors summarize strategies to increase densities and determine functional land use mixes for different scales of development. Additionally, they address the importance of improving transport competitiveness with the automobile, stressing the importance of door-to-door commuting times on mass transit by increasing its flexibility and availability to riders.

The authors also discuss the conflict of developing station areas into a node or place. Station areas that have nodal character as opposed to a place character tend to be more of a transportation hub than a TOD. The text summarizes ways of having a compromise of the two by discussing TOD case studies that faced similar predicaments.

The information presented in this book aims to give planners a source of inspiration or starting point in identifying TOD strategies and adaptations applicable to their communities.

Four Strategic Planning Tools for TOD:

1. A strategic policy framework that asserts where centers need to occur and at what kind of density and mix: Centers provide services and amenities based on economies of scale and density. Centers enable car dependence to be reversed without destroying the character of the suburbs.

2. A strategic policy framework that links centers with a rapid transit base, almost invariably electric rail: Car dependence is expensive; rapid transit plans assist cities in wealth creation. Americans spend up

to 40% of their income on personal automobile transportation. Build a transit system in corridors that can travel faster than automobiles.

3. A statutory planning base that requires development to occur at the necessary density and design in each center, preferably facilitated by a specialized development agency:

Strategic planning is necessary but not sufficient. There needs to be a statutory planning mechanism that requires density and mix in centers.

TODs require regional planning sources. Proactive planning processes that create land packages and do the detailed urban design are usually beyond local government resources.

4. A public-private funding mechanism that enables the transit and the TOD to be built or refurbished through a linkage between the transit and the centers it will service:

Public-private partnerships for rail projects automatically integrate centers.

The Network City Theory (applied in Perth, Australia):

"The significance of the 'Network City' is its attention to regional structure, accessibility and the land use/transport function of roads. Of importance is for a strategy capable of being retrofitted to existing urban areas as well as guiding development in new urban areas." 'Network City's spatial framework consists of three elements:

1. Activity corridors: land located within a quarter mile of a main transit artery or subway rail line, optimally on both sides of the transit spine.

2. Activity centers: are developed at intervals along the activity corridor as the focus of daily activity needs including small-scale employment, shopping and services, and medium to higher density housing all placed within walking distance of the public transport node at the center.

3. Transport corridors: are paired with one or more activity corridors to form a network, and provide a fast moving route for inter-urban travel, reducing the need for longer through –traffic routes to access activity corridors.

Network City community planning headline strategies:

Manage growth by sharing responsibility between industry, communities, and government Make fuller use of urban land Plan with communities Nurture the environment Encourage public over private transport Strengthen local sense of place Develop strategies which deliver local jobs Provide affordable housing

Network City community planning headline strategies:

Define and plan for TOD centers based on public transport accessibility Mandate housing and employments targets for these TOD centers in order to provide certainty for

infrastructure providers (including the public transport agency) and local government Design for some arterial roads to achieve TOD at centers rather than simply maintaining a car-based traffic

function Establish a framework for cross sector and cross-agency collaboration Provide for collaboration with the community

Promoting TOD at the Local Level (Opportunities and Constraints):Adaptive Sustainability Strategies

1. Framing: A means of circumventing sustainability initiatives at the broad policy levels as well as the specific, local levels. The two scoping processes involved are:

Contextualization: includes "big-picture" frameworks that identify guidelines, resources, and procedural tools. Without sufficient contextualization, TOD projects may encounter lending uncertainty, an extended development review process, and difficulty facilitating a collaborative team of informed professionals to implement the project.

Localization: identifying opportunities and constraints pertinent to a specific local area to determine what local resources or solutions to apply to the project.

2. Blending: merging tools and processes identified by 'contextualization' which have been determined to be applicable solutions and or solutions through 'localization'.

3. Translation: after determining what processes are applicable, translation is the act of delineating social, cultural, and environmental opportunities that can be complimentary to the existing built form.

4. Review: must establish a efficient, comprehensive, and consistent evaluative framework for project review processes.

Delivering Mixed-Income Housing in Transit Served Neighborhoods: Provide truly affordable housing Stabilize high-percentage riders Broadening access to opportunity Extending the health benefits of TOD to all

Boston Mixed Income Neighborhoods

The state of Massachusetts created a $30 million dollar TOD Infrastructure and Housing support Program coupled with smart growth housing laws that provide financial incentives for compact housing. Additionally, MassHousing, a state agency dedicated to affordable housing initiatives, provides technical assistance and resources for TOD proponents including allocating millions of dollars for mixed-income projects near transit.

Charlotte Mixed Income NeighborhoodsThe City of Charlotte approved a comprehensive plan that allocates new growth and development along a future light rail and modern streetcar line. Further, a TOD Response Team was created to assist developers obtain entitlements, public improvements, and financial assistance. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission has been proactively determining what sites would be most suitable for TOD, and set up a South Corridor Land Acquisition Fund to assemble opportunistic land for future station area plans. To accommodate affordable housing, the city increased an allowance of subsidized housing to 20% within a quarter mile of transit stations.

TOD in America: The Private Sector View

Developers face more challenges building TOD than traditional development. Assembling large parcels of land, constructing dense multi-story development, determining proper mix of uses, and the perception of a risky market type are all major dilemmas developers encounter when contemplating developing a TOD project. Despite recent demographic market analyses reporting TOD is an emerging trend in real estate, developers do not have many U.S. TOD projects to draw conclusions from, thus making it difficult to calculate risks. Given that TOD is a relatively new concept in development 'trends', it will take time to affirm the financial gains typically associated with TOD. Although no project is guaranteed success, indications from existing TODs in Portland, Dallas, and Washington, D.C. validate TODs typically have higher market rate rents when compared to adjacent areas outside the quarter-mile transit node. On average TOD has lucrative potential with rent premiums are 15-25 percent higher, mitigating increased construction costs of 10-20 percent. Further, if parking requirements are relaxed (unbundling from units) and measured by maximum instead of minimum, developers can increase bottom lines by saving money parking lot construction.

Public-Private PartnershipsTODs in larger cities such as Boston and New York are easy for the private market to develop without assistance from the local government. Developers already have existing public transportation infrastructure to accommodate more transit-based development. However, in medium size cities with little public transportation infrastructure, developing TOD solely from a private development can be challenging. Developing TOD through public-private partnerships is a viable option for communities and local governments interested in implementing TOD. Public financial assistance can be challenging to obtain, and once found, often takes longer to implement projects. However, this type of partnership can be mutually beneficial when a municipality wants to execute TOD in their community and a progressive developer is looking for real estate development opportunities. Given the financial and logistical complexities involved in TOD projects, sometimes project costs, thus risks are too great for one developer to employ.

Federal Government Financing Tools: Low Income Housing Credits EPA funds for contaminated sites for TOD redevelopment FTA pedestrian safety and enhancement funds

Local Government Financing Tools: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Tax Abatements Low Interest Loans Parking Revenues Local Improvement District Bonding City Capital Improvements Funds

Low Income Housing Tax Credit Allocations

Autler, G., & Belzer, D. (2002). Transit-Oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric to Reality. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitian Policy .

This paper outlines possible opportunities and constraints associated with TOD projects. The author does however offer possible strategies and solutions for the constraints. It frames performance criteria such as location efficiency, value recapture, livability, financial, and choice components needed to ensure TOD project viability. To facilitate TOD projects, the authors list proactive measures that local governments and transit agencies can take to ensure frameworks are in place for future TOD endeavors.

Frameworks:

1. A focus on the desired functional outcomes of TOD, not just physical characteristics. 2. Acknowledgement of a continuum of success.3. Adaptation to different locations and situations.

Six Performance Areas: 1. Location Efficiency: area where residents have less transportation costs due to their proximity to alternative

modes of transit. Usually entails high quality transit options, mix of land uses, and good pedestrian design.2. Value Recapture: reduced broad cost of living. TOD not only saves households money, but also has the ability

to save developers and local governments money too. Reduced automobile use means reduced demand for parking, roadway construction, maintenance costs, as well as land acquisition for automobile related uses. Additionally, mortgage-lending institutions have recognized the value of households near transit, allowing borrowing households higher mortgage limits that are located near adequate transit (recognizing borrowers will have more income to spend on housing because of reduced automobile dependency).

3. Livability (TOD): Improved air quality Decrease commute times/congestion Improved access to retail, services, cultural, recreation and public space opportunities Better health and public safety Better economic viability

4. Financial Return: TOD planner must understand the expected return on investments made in projects, facilitating creative financing, and initiate public-private partnerships.

5. Choice: TOD provides a variety of housing, lifestyle, and transportation choices.

Challenges for Transit-Oriented Development: Difficulties of financing Poor transit design Unsupportive regulatory framework Lack unifying policy goals objectives Tension between node and place Parking and access roads TOD placemaking (designated appropriate mix of uses) Uncertainty of synergy among complex TOD components Need appropriate/supportive marketing, physical, and regulatory environment for TOD projects

Recommended Actions for Transit Agencies:

Should be place-based and market-oriented Needs to work for communities, people, employers and employees High degree of flexibility TOD educators/intermediaries need to advocate and form partnerships and provide technical assistance to

local governments Establish a TOD fund and create financing/funding Create a typology of TOD projects Showcase examples to realize TOD potential Develop and promote TOD parking strategies Promote standardization of lending strategies for TOD Close joint development/partnerships between transit agencies and local government for TOD Create station access plans for critical link from stations to adjacent land uses, promoting integration Plan TOD at system wide scale: regional, local, site/station.

Recommended Actions for Local Governments:

Establish transit-oriented development area plans around all transit stations Set high design standards, ensure careful design review-and enforce them Unbundle parking from specific land uses for flexibility in mandatory parking Provide financial and land assembly assistance to transit agencies and or developers as incentive Establish explicit policies for incorporating mixed income housing Be familiar about TOD financing and funding options Use phasing and design flexibility to demonstrate market viability-allow for TOD evolution Integrate affordable housing into mixed us/mixed income projects

Cervero, R., & Arrington, G. (2008). Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing. (G. L. Brosch, Ed.) Journal of Public Tranportation , 11 (3), 1-16.

The authors present a conflicting study of TOD housing projects that average fewer vehicle trips than the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation manual claims. The article presents technical information on established TOD parking ratios and trip "degeneration" benefits of each project. A major apprehension to TOD proposals is the knowledge gap of associated benefits of TOD. The research identifies contradictions in the ITE manual, also the standard for determining impact fees, which misguide and underestimate major benefits of TOD.

Recommended Actions for Local Governments:

Over typical weekday period, TOD housing projects average 44% fewer vehicle trips than Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation manual.

When neighborhood densities are increased, trip rates decrease. Local officials should account for the decrease in automobile uses in TOD, reducing requirements for off-street

parking and impact fees (adjust at least). Need research on travel demand/vehicle trip generation rates effects of TOD.

The ITE is predicting much higher trip rates than are actually being made-not allowing TOD to be recognized for the significant trip degeneration its responsible for.

Trip reducing-benefits of TOD call for other development incentives, such as flexible parking codes, market-responsive zoning, streamlining the project review, and permitting process, and investments in supportive public infrastructure.

Cervero, R., & Arrington, G. (2008). TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

The report outlines key findings in past and present trends of housing, mass transit systems, commuting habits, and lifestyle choices regarding TOD. The authors analyze the influential effects of parking around transit stations and in TOD. Research is presented about various TOD typologies and their coordinating transit system types. The report delineates strategies to increase ridership, outlining what has worked and what has not. It analyzes current TOD market demographics, giving examples of what typologies different user groups prefer. Additionally, the author gives an in depth analysis on how all of the stated variables affect trips generated by the automobile.

Transit Systems and Land Uses/Ridership Strategies

TOD households are twice as likely not to own a car, and overall own half as many automobiles as non-TOD households.

Between 1970-2000, transit ridership for work trips increased in TOD zones, but has decreased in metro areas. Transit service of 10-minute headways is ideal to sustain a transit lifestyle. Transit service door to door must be more time efficient. A fast rail corridor adjacent to a congested

highway/automobile corridor will attract ridership. Location of jobs accessible by transit influences ridership. It is critical to locate jobs/employment centers near transit to attract households to TOD. Mixed use is a

catalyst-not not initially required. Employment access is most important for success.

TOD Housing Transportation Performance Potential for greater developer profits and or increased housing affordability from higher densities, lower

captital costs for parking, and reduced traffic impact fees. Smart growth requires accurate calculations; impact fees, parking ratios, and road improvements need to

account for the likely trip-reductioneffects of TOD.TOD commuters typically use transit 2 to 5 times more than other commuters in the region.

Established heavy rail systems had the highest transit ridership growth, likely from TOD joint development partnerships.

Cities with large parking lots around transit stations had a decrease in ridership (Atlanta). Cities with aggressive TOD policies experienced transit growth (Portland) TOD transit growth occurred in Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City. Declines in TOD transit occurred in San Diego, Dallas, and Denver, although transit remains twice as high.

Market demands for Transit-Oriented Development

TOD's attract small, typically childless households. The number of childless households is projected to increase significantly to past generations.

Gen-Generation X'ers (24-34) and empty nest baby boomers are the primary demographic driving demand for urban real estate.

Portland has taken a progressive approach towards attracting families to TOD's by adopting developer bonuses and potential tax abatements for family-size units and tot lots in new residential TOD projects.

Project Transit Mode TOD Type DemographicsThe Pearl District,Portland, OR Streetcar Urban Downtown High Income, retiring seniors, childless

urban professionals

Mockingbird Station, Dallas, TX Light Rail Urban Neighborhood 30-45 year old professionals who can afford to own, but prefer to rent

The Cedars,Dallas, TX Light Rail Urban Neighborhood Lofts occupied by young professionals

and empty nestersCenter Commons,Portland, OR Light Rail Urban Neighborhood Mixed income by design, 75% earning

less than 25kVillage Green,Arlington Heights, IL Commuter Rail Suburban Center Empty nesters and childless

professionalsTriangle TOD,La Grange, IL Commuter Rail Suburban Center Empty nesters and childless

professionalsMarket Square Townhomes,Elmhurst, IL Commuter Rail Surburban Center Long term residents looking for

properties easy to maintain.Addison Circle,Addison, TX Bus Surburban Center Professionals who can afford to own,

but prefer to rent.The Round,Beaverton, OR Light Rail Surburban Center Sales targeted to urban, "edgy"

marketGaslight Common,South Orange, NJ Commuter Rail Surburban Neighborhood Rail-based housing for childless

households.

Car-ownership rates in TOD's

Community Cars/Household TOD TypeArlington, VA 1.4 CountyCourt House 1.1 Suburban CenterClarendon 1.3 Suburban CenterRosslyn 1.1 Suburban CenterBallston 1.2 Suburban CenterSan Francisco, CA 1.1 CountyChurch/24th 1.1 Urban NeighborhoodEmbarcadero 0.5 Urban NeighborhoodCook County, IL 1.4 CountyLaSalle 0.7 Urban DowntownChicago/Fullerton 1.1 Urban NeighborhoodChicago/Berwyn 0.7 Urban NeighborhoodEvanston/Davis 1 Suburban CenterEvanston/Dempster 1.2 Suburban NeighborhoodEvanston/Main 1.3 Suburban Neighborhood

*Table 1.8 2000 auto ownership for TODs

In the Center Commons (Portland) TOD, 30% of respondents reported owning fewer cars after living in a TOD neighborhood. 37% of respondents do not own a car.

17% of Merrick households reported selling their vehicles after residing in a TOD neighborhood. TOD households own an average of 0.9 cars compared to 1.6 for non-TOD households.

TOD Housing's Influence on Traffic

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) produce the document that determines how much impact fees and exactions developers pay based on the estimated increase of traffic and parking rates generated for new development. The ITE estimates TOD generated vehicle trips based on a few mixed-use projects on Florida, none of which are true TOD, resulting in understated traffic reduction associated with TOD. The author conducted research by collecting data via pneumatic-tube recorders at curb cuts and driveways as well as on-site observation. The research experiment compared ITE trips with actual researcher-documented trips made in TOD districts in different four cities. In every city, published ITE rates were substantially higher than the research experiment recorded. The experiment results state TOD had an average of 47% less traffic than predicted by the ITE. This research confirmed the author's suspicions that TOD generates notably less traffic than conventional development.

Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (Eds.). (2004). The New Transit Town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

This text is a compilation of historical, theoretical, and applicable practices and principles in TOD. The authors analyze a broad scale of successful projects, varying in scales, geographic locations, and densities. The book organizes the projects into TOD typologies, identifying the variable urban intensities that supported each TOD. The authors' synthesis of TOD zoning codes and policies, funding and finance methods, and public-private partnerships, educates the reader on fundamental and technical tools used in thriving TOD projects. Overall, the book is one of the most comprehensive texts on implementation-ready policy tools used in TOD projects.

"Without a concerted effort to develop standards and definitions, to create products and delivery systems, and to provide research support, technical assistance, and access to capital, TOD will remain just a promising idea."

TOD should achieve five main goals:

1.Location Efficiency: conscious placement of homes in proximity to transit systems Density Transit Accessibility Pedestrian Friendliness

2.Rich Mix of Choices3.Value Capture:

Frequent High Quality Service Good connections between transit and the community Community amenities and a dedication to placemaking Scorekeeping and attention to financial returns

4.Place Making: Places for People Enrich the Existing Make Connections Work with the Landscape Mix Uses and Forms Manage the Investment Design for Change

5.Resolution of tension between Node and PlaceTOD Typologies

1. Urban Downtown: often served by several types of transit and is typically a primary transfer point for various modes

2. Urban Neighborhood: moderate to high-density housing; frequent transit is within a 5-10 minute walk. Tend to be backbone of a compact, transit –friendly; high potential to become a transit corridor.

3. Suburban Town Center: small towns engulfed by growth-becoming important job centers.

4. Suburban Neighborhood: suburban community on a light rail or bus line, (typically peak hour) accessible to and from downtown

5.Neighborhood Transit Zone: transit stop with limited commercial in residential area6.Commuter Town: sprawl community that has access to rail or bus service to urban cores; typically only runs on peak

hour work schedule

TOD Type Land Use Mix

Minimum Density Housing

Housing Types Scale Regional

ConnectivityTransit Modes Frequencies Examples

Urban Downtown

Primary Office Center, Urban Entertainment,

Multifamily

>60 units/acre Multifamily, Loft

High High, Hub of radial system

All modes < 10 minutes Printers Row (Chicago), LoDo (Denver), South

Beach (San

housing, Retail Francisco)

Urban Neighborhoo

d

Residential, Retail,

Commercial>20 units/acre

Multifamily, Loft,

Townhome, Single Family

Medium

Medium, access to downtown, Sub regional circulation

Light-Rail, Streetcar, Rapid Bus, Local BUs

10 minutes peak, 20 minutes off

peak

Mockingbird (Dallas), Fullerton (Chicago),

Barrio Logan (San Diego)

Suburban Center

Primary Office Center, Urban Entertainment,

Multifamily housing, Retail

>50 units/acreMultifamily,

Loft, Townhome

HighHigh, access to downtown, Sub

regional hub

Rail, Streetcar, Rapid Bus,

Local Bus, Para transit

10 minutes peak, 10-15 minutes

off peak

Arlington County

(Virginia), Addison Circle

(Dallas), Evanston (Illinois)

Suburban Neighborhoo

d

Residential Neighborhood,

Retail, Local Office

>12 units/acreMultifamily, Townhome, Single Family

Moderate

Medium, access to suburban

center, access to downtown

Light-Rail, Rapid Bus,

Local Bus, Para transit

20 minutes peak, 30 minutes off

peak

Crossings (Mountain View, CA), Ohlone-

Chynoweth (San Jose, CA)

Neighborhood Transit Zone

Residential Neighborhood,

Retail>7 units/acre Townhome,

Single FamilyLow access to

center Low Local Bus, Para Transit

25-30 minutes, demand

responsive

Commuter Town Center

Retail Center, Residential >12 units/acre

Multifamily, Townhome, Single Family

Low Low access to downtown

Commuter Rail, Rapid Bus

Peak service, demand

responsive

Prairie Crossing (Illinois), Suisun City (California)

TOD Case Study Profiles

Project Description Site Uses Density Height Parking Transit Proximity

Metropolitan Place: Renton,

WA

Small-scale urban redevelopment,

integrating structured parking owned by transit

district, affordable housing and retail

30,000 SF infill site in

suburban downtown

90 apartments, 4,000 SF retail

120 units per acre

5 stories (3 residential levels above 2 levels of

parking and ground floor retail)

240 total, 90 for apartments and 150

park-and-ride leased by county

Bus transit center across street

Lindbergh CityCenter: Atlanta,

GA

Major employment center with Main Street retail and

housing at MARTA Station

80 acre infill site within

existing neighborhoods

566 apartments, 259 condos, 1 million SF office

plus 1.2 million SF in second phase, 330,000 SF

retail

21.5 units per acre

Ranges from 3 stories to high-rise towers

2.3 spaces per 1,000 commercial SF, less than one

space per residential unit, (10,000 space

garage)

Located at MARTA (heavy-rail station)

Addison Circle: Addison, TX

Mixed-use infill project creating new

activity for community, adjoining

major bus transfer facility

80 acre suburban site

1,5000 housing units to date (4,000 at full build-out), mostly rental and

live-work, future phases of condos and

townhomes, 115,000 SF of retail and 342,000 SF of

office, public spaces

100 units per acre,

1.86 FAR for commercial

uses

Residential is up to 5 stories, office up to 10

stories

1/bedroom, 3.2/1,000 SF office, 3.7/1,000 SF retail

Adjacent to proposed light-rail, bus service existing at 15-30 min. peak

and 30-60 min nonpeak

Market Commons at Clarendon: Arlington,

VA/D.C. Region

Mixed-use redevelopment

introducing urban development types

to WMATA's Clarendon station

area

13 acre former retail center

300 luxury apartments, 87 townhomes, 240,000 SF retail, 31,000 SF office

30 units/acre (3.0 FAR with 1.0

additional FAR

permitted as bonus), 1.5 FAR for commercial

users

75 feet in C-3 zone and 45 feet in C-2 zone

900 spaces structured above

retail

Site between two Metro stops first within 900 feet of

development

Willow Springs Village Center: Willow Springs,

IL

Mixed-use redevelopment

creating a new village center

40 acres of former

industrial properties

138 townhomes, 136 condos, 52,000 SF retail and office, new Village

Hall

1.16 FAR, townhomes

at 16 du/acre

3-story mixed use and office buildings, 6-story

condo buildings

Surface parking and 104-car structure

Metra Station located adjacent to project behind City

Hall

Orenco Station: Hillsboro, OR

New mixed-use neighborhood

190 acre suburban greenfield

300 single-family homes and townhomes, 350

condos, 600 apartments, 27,000 SF retail, 30,000 SF class A office (adjacent to site is a 50 acre regional

shopping center)

10.5 units per acre

Ranges from 2-story residential units to 4-

story mixed-use buildings in

commercial center

Requirement ranges from 0.9

spaces/unit to 0.75 spaces/senior or student housing

unit

¼ mile to light-rail station

The Crossings: Mountain View,

CA

Mixed-housing residential

redevelopment on 18 acre shopping center,

includes affordable housing

18 acre suburban

greyfield site

630 units, including single-and multi-family and townhomes, 5,000 SF

retail parks

30 du/acre 2 stories 36 surface park-and-ride spaces

Heavy commuter rail stops at site

Ohlone-Chynoweth

Commons: San Jose, CA

Mixed-use project built on light-rail

station parking lot

7.3 acre former park-and-ride

lot

195 affordable townhouses, 4,400 SF of retail, 3,000 SF day care,

4,000 SF community room

27 units per acre 2 stories

366 spaces for the TOD, 200 park-and-

ride spaces

2,000 feet to buss and light rail station

Del Mar Station: Pasadena, CA

Retail and apartment project integrating

planned station

4.16 acre urban infill site includes 0.64 acres of track, 0.13 for street widening, net

acreage of 3.39 acres

347 apartment units in four buildings, 11,000 SF

retail, 1 acre plaza

10.1 du/acre 4-7 stories

1,200 below-grade (600 for apt.

residents and 600 for rail patrons)

Light rail line connecting

Pasadena to downtown Los

Angeles to become major intermodal transit center for

Pasadena

16 Market Square: Denver,

CO

Office, residential, and retail building

fronting on Denver's transit mall

8 acre infill site 23 condos, 25,000 SF retail, 180,000 SF office 7.0 FAR

5 stories above grade, 3 levels of

underground parking120,000 SF garage Transit mall served

by bus and light-rail

The Steelyards: Boulder, CO

Small-scale urban redevelopment

project with housing and commercial uses

10.6 acre greyfield site

90 dwelling units (including 18 affordable),

221,000 commercial space

8.6 units/acre, 0.67 FAR

residential, 10.6 FAR

commercial

2-4 stories 426 spaces surface and underground

Within 1,000 feet of the bus line

TOD Case Study Zoning Examples

Project Applicable Plans and PoliciesApplicable Development Regulations,

Guidelines, and ProceduresMetropolitan Place: Renton,

WACity of Renton Comprehensive Plan Center Downtown Zoning District with exceptions due to location in the "Downtown

Core area", Design review under Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations

Lindbergh CityCenter: Atlanta,

GA

Atlanta Comprehensive Development Plan,Lindbergh Transportation Area Development Study

C-3-C zoning with implementing urban design provisions from Lindbergh Special Public Interest District (SPI-15)

Addison Circle: Addison, TX

1991 Comprehensive Plan Urban Center and Special Events District with required concept plan, development plan and final development plan

Market Commons at Clarendon: Arlington,

VA/D.C. Region

Clarendon Sector Plan, East Clarendon Special Coordinated Mixed-Use District Plan

Site plan review; zoning districts; low-office-apartment-hotel (up to 1.5 FAR for office and up to 72 units per acre for apts) and low residential 11-15 units per acre on block

facing established low density residential at 1-10 units per acre.

Willow Springs Village Center: Willow Springs,

IL

Village Comprehensive Plan Village Center Planned Development (VC-PD) District

Orenco Station: Hillsboro, OR

Portland Metro 2040 Plan,Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan

General Development Standards for Station Community Planning Areas, General Design Standards for Station Community Planning Areas, Orenco Station Area

Standards

The Crossings: Mountain View,

CAMountain View General Plan San Antonio Station Precise Plan

Ohlone-Chynoweth

Commons: San Jose, CA

San Jose General Plan,Transit Corridor Residential

Planned Development Ordinance

Del Mar Station: Pasadena, CA

Pasadena General Plan,Pasadena Central District Specific Plan

Design Guidelines for the Central District, Central District sub-district 9 regulations, design review, and variances relating to height, setbacks, parking

16 Market Square: Denver,

CO

Denver Comprehensive Plan,Lower Downtown Neighborhood Plan

B-7 District, Design Guidelines for Lower Downtown, Design Guidelines for Lower Downtown Streetscape

The Steelyards: Boulder, CO

City of Boulder Comprehensive and Subcommunity Plan Industrial Mixed-use zoning (IMS-X) with site plan review and Main Street Mixed-Use Zoning (BMS-X)

Planning and Policy Approach:

Create customized zoning for projects integrating transit facilities

Minimize customized planning and discretionary review for standardized projects Provide an explicit foundation in policy and politics Engage transit organization policy leadership Meet multiple objectives Anticipate a lengthy timeline for customized projects

Recommendations for Regulatory Provisions:

Active, Walkable streetso Land useo Sidewalkso Building Placement/Orientationo Entranceso Fenestrationo Block Sizeo Placement and Supply of Parkingo Street Standards

Building Density/Intensityo Specify minimum densitieso Establish average density

Careful Integration of Transit When the Zoning Doesn’t Fit

Planning Initiatives:

Put zoning and permitting in place Partner with experienced developers Create a broad vision and get community support Build a detailed business plan with strong market analysis Public investment in predevelopment can jump-start private investment

Structuring the Deal:

Phase the project to produce early cash flows Cultivate new and special interest equity investors Keep it simple to attract debt financing-horizontal mixed use Separate the uses in mixed-use buildings to secure financing

Financial Programs/Resources:

Tax increment financing FTA Livable Communities Initiative DOT Communities and System Preservation Fannie Mae's American Communities Fund

Planning and Design Principles for Minimizing Traffic and Parking:

Connectivity, Street Design, and Trip Reduction

Locate development close to transit Provide a pedestrian scale street network Provide connections to local and regional multiuse paths and trails that encourage longer walking and bicycle trips. Use multi modal street design

Strategies:

Revise level-of-service standards: relax or eliminate automobile LOS standards near transit and pedestrian oriented districts.

Use environmental review process to override traffic impacts. Replace vehicle mitigation measures with a general impact fee used for multimodal improvements.

Factors Impeding the Effectiveness of TOD:

Free and excessive parking Poor pedestrian environment Incorrect mix of uses Lack of transit link between housing and jobs Current Euclidean zoning practice

TOD Detailed Case Studies:

Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor, Arlington, VA Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle, Dallas, TX Lindbergh City Center, Atlanta, GA Ohlone-Chynoweth Station, San Jose, CA Barrio Logan, San Diego, CA

Bernick, M., & Cervero, R. (1997). Transit Villages in the 21st Century. NY: McGraw-Hill.

This book presents arguments for implementing TOD to solve problems like sprawling urban development patterns, poor air quality, dependence on foreign resources, and global climate change. The author corroborates his argument by discussing social and political consequences of these problems, making an adequate argument for remedial alternative through established TOD case study analysis.

Hallmarks of a Transit Village

1. Enhanced mobility and environment2. Pedestrian friendliness3. Alternative suburban living and working environments4. Neighborhood revitalization5. Public safety6. Public celebration

Contemporary Policy Concerns and Mass Transit

Traffic Congestion: During the 1980's, the number of lane miles of arterials and expressways combined increased 13.7 percent, but VMT increased 31.4 percent.

Air Quality: ISTEA General Environmental Concerns: Oil Spills, GHG emissions, Stormwater runoff; 30% of developed land consist of

roadways and parking lots Energy Conservation: In 1989, the average private automobile consumed 7246 BTUs per mile-commuter rail

consumed 1790 BTUs per mile. Social Equity Quality of Life

The Rebirth of Rail in the United States

Light Rail: efficient to use when retrofitting into existing urban areas; electricity comes from overhead wires and can be implemented in mixed traffic settings

Commuter Rail: typically link edge and suburban communities to an urban core or downtown Heavy Rail: rapid rail services that connect urban neighborhoods to major urban activity centers; usually on a

large scale (Boston, New York, Philadelphia)

The Built Environment and the Demand for Transit

Density: enough residents and employees within a reasonable walking distance of transit stations to generate ridership.

Diversity: mixture of land uses, housing types, and ways of circulating within the village. Design: physical features and site layouts that is conducive to walking, biking, and transit riding.

TOD Mixed Use Zoning Examples

Montgomery County, Maryland: (TS-M) Transit Station-Mixed zoning. Hillsborough, Oregon: mixed-use overlay zone San Diego: provides density bonuses to developments including child care centers light rail transit stops.

Lynwood, Washington: Mixed Use/Transit-Supportive zone that grants special use permits to specific mixed land uses such as banks, professional businesses, retail stores, offices, and child care centers

"At blended densities of around 12 units per acre, a transit village with one-quarter mile radius can accommodate a population of around 3800 (assuming there are 2.5 people per household)".

Crawford, P. C., Parolek, D. G., & Parolek, K. (2008). Form Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This book is a graphic step-by-step reference to implementing Form Based Codes in towns, neighborhoods, and communities. The topics are technical in nature and specifically intended to educate planners, architects, and urban designers the fundamental mechanics of implementing Form Based Codes.

Form Based Codes (FBC) are spatial organizing principles:

Vision based Prescriptive Holistic, addressing both private and public space design Place based, building upon and enhancing the unique characteristics of the community and region Customizable to unique landscape characteristics Identify and reinforce an urban hierarchy

Form Based Codes can potentially:

Reinforce local character and culture Revitalize urban town centers and historic neighborhoods Encourage reinvestment Promote and or create compact, walkable neighborhoods Promote sustainable planning practices by supporting and regulating development patterns that respond to

global climate change and the destruction of our environments

Required Components of Form Based Codes:

1. A Regulating Plan: a physical planning map that delineates the various codes to physical locations. The boundaries on the map outline where unique and prescriptive development standards are applicable within the entire transect framework. The primary basis for differentiating and mapping zones is the code's organizing principle of creating hierarchy to promote seamless transitions between urban development intensities. The regulating plan operates at a finer urban grain scale than conventional zoning codes, identifying appropriate zones within block and street frameworks. Form Based Zone boundaries are typically placed at alleys or lot rears to prevent awkward or conflicting development scales and land uses adjacent to one another. The most commonly used organizing principle is the rural-to-urban transect. This type of FBC gradates human ecosystems from rural to urban, emphasizing gradual building and development intensities.The following defines rural to urban transect zones:

T-1 The Natural Zone: consists of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition, including lands unsuitable for settlement due to topography, hydrology or vegetation.

T-2 The Rural Zone: consists of lands in open or cultivated state or sparsely settled. These include woodland, agricultural lands, grasslands and irrigable deserts.

T-3 The Sub-Urban Zone: consists of low-density suburban residential areas, differing by allowing home occupations. Planting is naturalistic with setbacks relatively deep. Blocks may be large and the roads irregular to accommodate natural conditions.

T-4 The General Urban Zone: consists of a mixed-use but primarily residential urban fabric. It has a wide range of building types: single, sideyard, and rowhouses. Setbacks and landscaping are variable. Streets typically define medium-sized blocks.

T-5 The Urban Center Zone: consists of higher density mixed-use building types that accommodate retail, offices, rowhouses and apartments. It has a tight network of streets, with wide sidewalks, steady street tree planting and buildings set close to the frontages

T-6 The Urban Core Zone: consists of the highest density, with the greatest variety of uses, and civic buildings of regional importance. It may have larger blocks; streets have steady street tree planting and buildings set close to the frontages.

2. Public Space Standards:

Thoroughfares: In order to create walkable communities, thoroughfares must be designed around the safety and comfort of the pedestrian. Traffic calming is imperative. Thoroughfares should have interconnected narrow streets on a gridded network, carefully designed intersections, and tight curb radii. Thoroughfares will vary in different transects but should be coordinated with state and local laws. Typical thoroughfares types include alleys, lanes, roads, streets, avenues, commercial/main streets, avenues, and boulevards. Thoroughfares generally consist of the following components:

o Movement Typeso Design Speedo Pedestrian Crossing Timeo Transect Zoneso R.O.W. Widtho Curb Face to Curb Face Widtho Traffic Laneso Bicycle Lanes

o Parking Laneso Curb Typeo Planter Typeo Landscape Typeo Walkway Typeo Lightingo Curb Radiuso Distance Between Intersections

Civic Spaces:"The quality of most recently built civic spaces is extremely low because current regulations primary regulate the amount of civic space required with few standards pertaining to the quality of the space." To provide an incentive for well-designed streets, allow them to count as 25-40% of the civic space requirements. Require that civic spaces be framed by streets on at least two sides. Civic spaces generally consist of the following components:

o Acreageo Locationo Size

o Allowable Transect Zoneso Activity Typeo General Character

3. Building Form Standards: essentially have the primary role in defining the physical form of the built environment. The standards establish the physical guidelines for each transect zone including build-to lines and heights, usually exemplified in easy-to-read graphic or table format. Building form standards generally consist of the following components:

Overview of the Zone Building Placement/ Form Setbacks Min/Max Lot Width Min/Max Building Height Ground-Floor Finished Level Height Minimum Ground-Floor Ceiling Height Minimum Upper-Floor Ceiling Height

Maximum Building Width Maximum Building Depth Maximum Ancillary Building Size Parking (type and size of required spaces) Allowable Land Uses Allowed Frontage Types Allowed Encroachments Allowed Building Types

4. Code Administration: Local governments should have an architect that is familiar with FBC on staff as the main point of contact for implementation reviews.

Frontage Type Standards Block Standards Building Type Standards Architectural Standards

FBC Implementation Process:

1. Pre-Phase 1 Scoping:

Assembling a team Selecting a Process Determining the Application Area Determining the Implementation Method Selecting an Approach to Coding

2. Phase 1 Documenting: Analysis of existing physical and regulatory conditions for the area to be coded. This is crucial to ensure the FBC is place-based in each instance of implementation. The documenting phase is done at two scales: a macro scale and a micro scale. The macro scale inventory consists of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. The micro scale inventory typically consists of thoroughfares, buildings, lots, blocks, civic spaces, architecture, and landscaping.

3. Phase 2 Visioning: Community-input driven vision with a refined level of detail that must be implementable. This process includes developing an Illustrative Plan and Imagery and Regulating Plan and Regulations. The Illustrative Plan graphically illustrates the macro and microelements and delineates transect zones. The Regulation plans, a core component of Form-Based Codes, are specific code regulations that determine physical applications allowed in the FBC environment.

4. Phase 3 Assembling: Form-Based Codes can replace conventional codes or be retrofitted to supplement existing development codes. Form Based Codes are graphic in nature, thus more legible than traditional text zoning codes. Be organized when assembling the FBC document. An efficient flow of FBC organizational components include:

Table of Contents Introduction Regulating Plan Building Form Standards Block Standards Public Space Standards Administration Glossary

Form-Based Code Case Studies:

Miami 21 Smart Code (Miami, FL) Santa Ana Downtown Renaissance Specific Plan (Santa Ana, CA) Downtown Master Plan and Form-Based Code (Benicia, CA) Development Code Update and Form-Based Code (Grass Valley, CA) TOD Smart Code (Leander, Texas) Heart of Peoria Land Development Code (Peoria, IL) Form-Based Code for Mixed-Use Infill (Sarasota County, FL) Towns, Villages, and Countryside (St. Lucie County, FL) Ventura, CA Montgomery, AL

Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y.-H., Arrington, G., et al. (2004). TCRP Report 102 Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Implementation Tools:

Strategic station area planning: need to be backed by a strong vision, policy incentives, and regulations Overlay zoning: most common means of controlling land uses, densities, and site designs of TOD Ancillary capital improvements: sidewalks, streetscapes, landscaped boulevards, façade enhancements Density bonuses for developers: used to promote affordable housing by allowing developers to build more units

than typically allowed by code Relaxation of parking standards: set maximums for parking instead of minimum requirements. This allows

developers more flexibility for construction budgets. Land assembly (land banking): local governments and or transit agencies assist developer in acquiring land for a

specific TOD project. Expediting reviews: fast tracking TOD project submittals through approval process, saving developers time and

money.

TOD Barriers:

High project costs: increased initial construction costs when building tall, dense buildings NIMBYISM: citizens that protest infill or densification in their communities Accommodating parking in TOD's: too much parking around a TOD project can detract from the effort to create

dense, compact urban design within the TOD node. Conflict between node and place: careful consideration needed when determining layout of transit station

functions that compliment functions accommodating the placemaking aspects of TOD Proper mix of land uses: untraditional (vertical development mixing) uses prove challenging when trying to obtain

financing, contractors, and funding. Limited expertise in TOD Planning: usually requires amending familiar conventional zoning codes which can be

challenging for planners

Benefits of TOD:

Curb sprawl development: dense, compact urban form that is within walking distance to mass transportation will decrease demand for new roadway construction and single-family housing development.

Reduce traffic congestion: increased use of mass transit decreases automobile use, thus decreases traffic and congestion

Increased ridership: valuable revenue gains; research shows that residents who live near an efficient transit system are five to six times more likely to ride transit.

Revitalization of blighted neighborhoods: typical components of TOD are capital improvements such enhanced streetscapes, façade improvements, and general urban placemaking amenities

Economic development: businesses near transit stops receive generous amounts of foot traffic, increasing opportunities for sales

Land conservation: compact urban form development patterns associated with TOD require less land for human habitat, allowing greenfield land to remain undeveloped

Improved air quality: less automobile traffic, less GHG emissions released into our environment

General Strategies for Implementing TOD:

Political leadership: need local political figure to champion efforts and marshal resources Strong public participation: residents should be included in all stages of TOD planning, designing, and

implementation. Intergovernmental coordination: developers need cooperation with all regulatory bodies involved Permissive regulatory environment

Financial Strategies for Implementing TOD:

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides federal funding for capital improvements.

Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP) of the Federal Highway Administration provides funding to enhance land-use and transportation connections.

Federal Transit Authority's new "Joint Development Policy" essentially allows transit agencies to sell land holdings financed by federal grant money without having to repay them as long as the federal funds used "help shape the community that is being served by the transit system".

Federal Transit Authority's "New Starts" program is a progressive funding program that requires applicants to address land-use as part of their capital investments. The program is looking for applicants that have existing and future land-use patterns, coupled with transit supportive policies. When determining successful applicants, FTA measures supportive zoning regulations near transit stations and tools to implement land-use policies. This program has led many local and regional governments to edit their land development and transportation policies and regulations into implementable "TOD ready" plans.

Federal Transit Authority's "Livable Communities" funding program facilitates inner-city revitalization through tax-credits and special grants. Revitalization efforts include funding capital improvements and overall physicall conditions near transit stops and stations.

The Environmental Protection Agency has funding available for the remediation of brownfields that could be developed into TOD as it brownfields are typically industrial lands near railroads.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development fund housing subsidy programs that can be utilized to build affordable housing around transit.

The Congestion Management and Air Quality Act has distributed funding to TOD planning, specifically the Hiawatha Corridor in Minneapolis.

Specific Plans:

The city of Denver created Blueprint Denver plan, a new transit mixed-use zoning category (TMU-30) that allows FARs of 5 to 1. The increased densities allowed the city to reduce parking requirements near light rail stops by 25%.

Huntersville, NC implemented a TOD-R district that promotes complementary residential and commercial growth, additionally have and a TOD-E that promotes high-density office employment with FARs between 0.5 and 1.5 within walking distance to transit stations.

Benefits of TOD:

contributes to sustainable built form spur redevelopment in declining neighborhoods discourage automobile-induced sprawl development reduces automobile traffic congestion increases walkability and physical activity increased property values reduce road expenditures and infrastructure outlays reduces greenhouse gas emissions with reduced vehicle miles traveled increased ridership more affordable housing opportunities economic development conserve open space/preserve agricultural land from development

TOD Real Estate:Studies conducted over the past two decades have shown that residential property values have shown higher premiums when located 1/4-1/2 mile of a transit station. Examples include:

o +6.4% in Philadelphiao +6.7% in Bostono +10.6% in Portlando +17% in San Diegoo +20% in Chicagoo +24% in Dallas

o +45% in Santa Clara County, CA

Cervero, R., & Arrington, G. (2008). TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Case Studies:Boston, MA

In the 1950's and 1960's, there was significant historical building demolition to accommodate highways and modern monolithic architecture. This led citizens to voice strong concerns on preserving the traditional neighborhood character of the city, effectively halting construction projects in the early 1970's. Facing the dilemma on how to preserve and modernize their city, government leaders decided to invest heavily in public transit by using Interstate highway funds to improve transit.

Reinvesting in Boston's urban transit system catalyzed revitalization throughout the city. Since urban cores developed prematurely and unconsciously into optimal TOD's due to early settlers' dense, walkable and parking lot free neighborhoods- a redeveloped and more efficient transit system was crucial in revitalizing Boston's traditional urban environments. Moreover, despite rising U.S. automobile ownership rates, city officials

minimized roadway expansion projects and parking lot construction to encourage commuters to use the new and improved transit system.Further, in 1973, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) allowed the city to freeze parking requirements for new development, attempting to reduce air pollution. This has resulted in extremely high parking costs for Boston's automobile owners, effectively reducing automobile transportation in the city. Consequently, the freeze increased development activity as developers have higher profit margins since parking construction expenses are unnecessary. Another useful planning tool conducive to maintaining TOD patterns in Boston's is the Article 80 zoning code. The code requires transportation mitigation plans for developments 50,000 square feet. This encourages large developments to utilize the existing transit infrastructure. Other mitigation strategies include subsidizing metro passes, bicycle storage, and shuttle busses to major transit stations. The city's commitment to TOD-focused growth also exists at the neighborhood scale. Boston uses tax foreclosure properties to acquire land for TOD in underdeveloped or blighted communities. The city conducts any repairs, remediation, or demolition work and prepares to sell the land under the condition it will contribute to TOD. Innovative revitalization efforts continued when Boston became the first U.S. city to register in the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Main Street Program. In four years, the program produced $40 million in new residential and commercial construction, 120 facade improvements, and 313 new businesses. The program has also played a vital part in maintaining a viable balance of housing and jobs-crucial to Boston's long-term TOD strategy. U.S. For Boston, the transit investments proved to be the key ingredient to preserving its unique and historically rich urban character of model TOD. As a result, almost all of the city's urban cores are located within a ¼ mile of a transit station and command some of the highest rents and property values in the U.S. (Cervero, 1994)

Boston Bus Rapid Transit TODThe South End of Boston was traditionally been a low-income neighborhood, especially in the mid-twentieth century. The economy was so stagnant in this area, the Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority (MBTA) removed the elevated orange rail line in 1987 due to extremely poor ridership numbers, but promised to replace it with an a high frequency alternative, eventually (fta, washiungton line). Poor economic condition persisted in the Washington Street Corridor, a historical downtown Boston thoroughfare, and Boston's Waterfront Seaport District with many vacant, crime-ridden, and blighted properties in the 1990s. Finally, in 1997, the Mayor's task force report stated the main priority was to renovate the Washington Street Corridor with upgraded streetscapes and introduce Silver Line, a Bus Rapid Transit system (breakthrough). The MBTA chose a Bus Rapid Transit System over a light or heavy rail because The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) denied a New Starts application for light-rail infrastructure funding, deeming it cost-ineffective. As a result, city officials created The Washington Gateway Main Streets program in 1997, to encourage revitalization along the Washington Street Corridor, capitalizing on opportunities that the upgraded Silver Bus Rapid Transit Line would provide (breakthrough). Soon thereafter, the City of Boston and the MBTA designated a design committee that made decisions on proposed station locations, shelter designs, and urban design elements. The project's design and construction drawings were completed in early 2001, construction started later that same year. The Silver BRT Lines were planned for three implementation phases with the first phase, The Washington Street Silver Line opened in July 2002. (fta washington)

The Washington Street Line was located at grade, on a 2.4 mile revitalized streetscape of the Washington Street Corridor. The line connects Downtown Crossing rail station to Dudley Square, a major transfer bus station. (breakthrough) It employs 60-ft compressed natural gas buses, embellished with stylized silver graphics, distinguishing the fleet from MTBA's regular non-rapid service bus fleet. (breakthrough) The line also has fewer bus stops than a non-rapid transit route, with some buses equipped with signal priority equipment that shorten route-running times. These upgraded transit amenities dramatically increased ridership, up 96% on weekdays and 127% on weekends. (fta Washington)Just as the Washington Gateway Main Streets hoped for, increased ridership in the South End sparked development interest. Between 1997 and 2004, the corridor has seen $250 million in new real estate

construction and $93 million in rehabilitation, including 1,731 new or rehabilitated housing units, 128,000 square feet of new or renovated retail space, and $7 million in improvements to commercial spaces. This surge in development activity resulted in a 247% tax base increase. Additionally, in 2005 many more projects were in the planning stages. Other notable renovations include an opera house, several historic houses, and hotels. Further, in 2005, the National Trust for Historic Preservation presented Washington Street with the Great American Main Street Award. With the success of the first phase of the Silver Line, higher expectations and greater investments were made in phase two, The Waterfront Silver BRT Line. In 1999, the Boston Redevelopment Authority adopted the South Boston Waterfront Public Realm Plan, citing the Silver BRT Line was crucial to revitalizing the corridor. The Waterfront Line, opened in 2004 and travels between the Downtown South Station along the Seaport District to Logan International Airport, and employs 32 dual-mode diesel-electric vehicles. Between 1998 and 2006, approximately 4 million square feet of new development occurred in the South Boston Waterfront Area. Moreover, an additional 9 million square feet of development was planned for the area as of 2007(dot fta waterfront brt report). Major transportation infrastructure supporting the Waterfront Silver Line includes three underground stations and their tunnels, The Courthouse Station, The World Trade Center Station, and South Station, and the 1-mile Silver Line Tunnel, built exclusively for the Silver Line BRT fleet. The Courthouse Station and its tunnel was the most expensive to build on the Waterfront Silver Line, with capital costs of $110 million (brt fta study). The Courthouse station was named for its adjacent close proximity to the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse. The site north of the Courthouse Station is Fan Pier, located on the Boston Harbor. Given its optimum location, Fan Pier is currently one of the largest developments in the Seaport District at with investments totaling $3 billion dollars. Upon completion, Fan Pier will consist of three office buildings, a luxury hotel, over 1 million square feet in luxury residences, more than 300,000 square feet of street-level retail and restaurant space, a neighborhood park, a 6-acre marina, and a 65,000 square foot art museum. (breakthrough report) Additionally, abutting the Fan Pier site is the 23-acre Seaport Square project which is in the planning stages for a 20-block, 6.5 million square foot complex, with 2.3 million square feet of residential space, 1.4 million square feet of commercial space, 1.2 million square feet of retail and entertainment space, 600,000 square feet of designated hotel space, and 700,000 square feet of education and cultural space. Further, Seaport Square is also planning to implement streetscape improvements with wider sidewalks and landscaped medians (fta waterfront). The land surrounding the Boston World Trade Center Station has seen significant development in the last decade. The most common use has been office, as commercial tenants want their employees to have easy access to transit. The three major adjacent developments are the World Trade Center Complex, Waterside Place, and Boston Convention and Exhibition Center.

The Boston Convention and Exhibit Center opened in 2004 as the largest convention center in the northeastern United States, boasting 526,000 square feet of exhibit space. Further, the World Trade Center Complex consists of three office buildings, the World Trade Center Boston, World Trade Center East, and the World Trade Center West, totaling approximately 1.9 million square feet of office space, built for $385 million. Additionally, complimenting the office convention space, there is the flanking 426-room Seaport Hotel, built in 1998 for $120 million. (breakthrough)Waterside Place is another project adjacent to the World Trade Center station that is striving to add a retail and residential land use component to the area. The project was originally going to have a high retail component, but due to the economic decline, the project has shifted to an increase of rental residential space instead. Construction is slated to begin in 2011 and include 234 rental apartment units, 72,000 square feet of retail space, and 14,000 square feet of office space for a cost of $132 million. (boston redev news)Boston's Silver Line has proved Bus Rapid Transit can in fact be a catalyst for TOD. Although some phases of the Silver Line involved complicated and ambitious construction measures, 3.9 million square feet of development activity had occurred within a quarter mile of Silver Line transit stations as of 2006, with projections of another 5 million by 2010. (fta-waterfront)

New JerseyNew Jersey has experienced a recent surge of community redevelopment in the form of TOD. This is primarily due to an increased demand for affordable professional housing near transit lines with reasonable commute times to New York City. For example, professionals commuting from Hoboken, NJ, that have chosen not to live, but still work in Manhattan, save around $800 dollars a month in comparable housing costs. This market dynamic demand continues the further one lives from the city, prompting development of transit villages along NJ transit corridors. Given the need for affordable housing accessible to New York City, progressive state led policies and local political leadership created a multitude of initiatives and programs that incentivize TOD. Major reinvestments made in the mid 1990s to transit infrastructure, specifically adding additional stations and routes to shorten commute times, catalyzed TOD initiatives to address demand. NJ TOD programs and initiatives stem from statewide smart-growth planning efforts led by two consecutive governors. "The state's Office of Smart Growth provides administrative and technical support for implementing the state land-use plan and directs capital grants to local projects that embrace smart-growth principles." A non-profit group, New Jersey Future, created a unique planning tool, a Smart Growth Scorecard, to help identify projects that are the most smart-growth oriented by how many modes of transit the development is accessible by, other than the automobile. The two specific state programs that have been particularly resourceful for TOD projects are the 1999 "Transit Village Initiative" and the 1998 Brownfields and Contaminated Site Remediation Act. The 1999 Transit Village Initiative has been fundamental by providing grants and technical assistance to municipalities planning and designing TOD. The program gives priority access to state funding for urban renewal and transportation improvements, additionally provides coordinated technical assistance from ten state agencies. The specific criteria used to determine if a municipality is eligible for "transit village" status and qualify for all of its benefits are:

Demonstrated land–use strategy: a master plan, zoning ordinance, or redevelopment plan must exist that embraces transit village principles.

Available properties: land must be available in proximity to transit facilities. Ready-to-go projects: there must be a viable market interest and activities in the works.

Station-area management: economic development strategies and ancillary activities like streetscaping and traffic calming are desired.

Architectural integrity: the historical significance of buildings should be preserved. Jobs, housing, and culture: job creation, affordable housing, and cultural offerings should be promoted.

The 1998 Brownfields and Contaminated Site Remediation provides funding for site cleanups and land remediation, and gives provisional power for streamlining redevelopment review processes for restored sites. This legislation revitalized traditional rail towns blanketed with noxious industrial lands, transforming them into small scale TOD districts that offer affordable workforce housing for NYC commuters. (Cervero, 1994)

Washington, D.C.The Washington Metro rail system is the only U.S. transit system built specifically to organize growth and curb congestion. The visionary staff from WMATA, Arlington County, Montgomery County, Virginia, and Maryland realized the potential land development opportunities associated with uncomplicated access to an efficient mass transit system. The concerted effort by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and local area governments to encourage development near metro rail stations early on was crucial to the success of the thriving TOD districts in D.C., Virginia, and Maryland today. In fact, the first public private development agreement WMATA engaged in was in 1973 with the Rosslyn (Virginia) Metro Center, three years before the Metrorail system opened.

The earliest redevelopment effort was to revitalize THE Rosslyn-Ballston (R-B) corridor, a 3-mile low-density commercial strip in Arlington, VA that was also serving as a blighted commuting thoroughfare into the D.C. In the 1970s, the area lost more than 1/3 of its population and many local businesses due to the sprawling suburbanization occurring in the region at that time. As early as the mid-1960s, local officials proposed TOD as the vehicle to revitalize the declining suburban corridor, utilizing WMATA's plans to extend transit service to that area. (Leach, 1994)

After discussing many possible concepts to fuel a revitalization campaign for the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, the county coined the project the "bulls-eye" plan, demonstrating the proposed intensity activity that would occur within ¼ mile of the five planned transit stations and be a fifteen-minute walk from one another. The idea was to increase building heights and development densities at each WMATA transit station and make appropriate hierarchical intensity transitions to and from adjacent low-density neighborhoods, reciprocating this intensity pattern at each station along the corridor.

WMATA's Metrorail transit lines finally extended to the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor in the late 1970s, providing easy access to many parts of the D.C. region and Reagan International Airport. From 1972-2002 an 81% increase of assessed land value and improvements including of 11,000 residential units, 16 million square feet of office, 1 million square feet of retail, and 1,900 hotel rooms. (Leach, 1994) As of 2003, approximately 1.1 million square feet of commercial development and 1,400 housing units were under construction. The progressive persistence of Arlington County officials to redevelop the R-B corridor was instrumental in dissolving early, often-fierce opposition. Today, Arlington County rarely faces community challenge and opposition because of their commitment to maintaining an open dialogue with the existing community about future development decisions. Further, the county diligently seeks future joint development opportunities through a methodical analysis that delineates suitability specific to individual project portfolios.

County planners developed a methodical TOD site classification system to determine what projects were most ripe via the market and public interest. "Level 1 sites have significant private-sector interest and will require little public-sector intervention. Level 2 properties show some private-sector interest, but carry constraints due to some hesitancy by the local jurisdiction to move forward or to site issues. Level 3 sites suffer from lack of private-sector interest and require substantial public-sector intervention over a long period of time". This classification system help clarify TOD suitability in terms of market feasibility to all parties involved in WMATA TOD partnerships, clarifying the level of risk for involved parties. The transparency of WMATA's and Arlington County's joint development agreements give developer's a certain sense of predictability, thus the most successful TOD project in the country was championed by the two entities.

While successful development projects with high occupancy rates are optimum for economic growth, they can also produce challenges for equitable growth strategies. Arlington County's soaring property values have depleted affordable housing stock in the private market. In 1990, the county created incentives and facilitated partnerships with developers, non-profits, and property owners to build and maintain the availability of affordable housing. Additionally, the county created the "Special Affordable Housing Protection District" (SAHPD) to maintain affordable housing through density bonus incentives and requiring one-for-one replacement of affordable units in the designated areas within the Metrorail corridors. (Leach, 1994)

The county also encouraged affordable housing through a program "Community Benefit Units" or CBUs, which are housing units owned by nonprofits or individuals but governed by county agreements that guarantees the units remains affordable up to 30 years. "By the end of 2001, 7.9 percent of the 22,708 housing units in the corridor (1,783 units) were CBUs". (p.136, Leach) The county has made concerted efforts to incentivize development of residential housing units since the 1970's. Since there continues to be an incoming supply of housing, attempting to meet demand, it has helped to maintain the area's housing stock affordability. In fact, in the 1980s, new office development surpassed rates of new residential development prompting the county to implement special zoning districts requiring developers to construct residential units before building the maximum allowable of office unit density. These improvised programs enabled Arlington County to capitalize on the constant growth and development, providing a true mixed-use neighborhood with a rare equal ratio of residential housing to retail and office commercial development. (Leach, 1994)

Although the county frequently prescribes specific guidelines to ensure optimum development potential, the early core planning guidelines and principles mostly remain the same. Early on, the county created a general land use plan (GLUP) and station area plans, determining where development should occur. After designating areas in the corridor for transit-oriented growth; setbacks, densities, circulation, and were outlined to bolster the physical elements of the plan. Additionally, each station had an individual sector plan that addressed land use, zoning ordinances, streetscape standards, urban design, transportation, and open space guidelines with ¼ mile of each station, ensuring unique form, and efficient function of each station. This type of micro-scale planning design at the macro-scale of transit station planning led to successful completion of station "districts". "Rosslyn, Ballston, and Crystal City serve as business centers; Court House has emerged as a governmental center; Pentagon City has become a regional shopping center; Clarendon functions as an urban village with shops and restaurants; and Virginia Square has a cultural and educational focus." The planning strategies used to implement different "district" station types were:

targeted infrastructure improvements incentive zoning development proffers permissive and as-of-right zoning (to entice private investments around stations)

The success of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor is the product of a strong, progressive vision integrated with long-range planning. The immaculate attention to urban macro and micro-scale at the station, site, sector, district, and corridor reflects the existing continuity planners were initially striving for. An important lesson learned in Arlington's case is planning cannot start too early. The same planning principles used for the corridor thirty years ago, are used today but are refined to progress with the built environment.

Most TOD projects in the region were only possible through joint development ventures, which have proven to be exemplary resource implementation tools for often-complex TOD projects. "WMATA defines joint development as a creative program through which property interests owned and/or controlled by WMATA are marketed to office, retail/commercial, recreational/entertainment, and residential developers with the objective of developing transit-oriented development projects." Additionally, rather than wait for TOD proposals, WMATA created a real-estate development department to seek, orchestrate, and implement joint development partnerships as well as land acquisitions and holdings. WMATA developed basic TOD guidelines, aiming to increase revenue, attract additional ridership, and expand the local tax base: (Cervero,1994)

maximizing the use of transit, not automobiles linking land use with transit (physically or functionally) providing a diversity of housing types emphasizing mixed uses in high density neighborhoods creating special places

WMATA's investment in a major rail system was the catalyst for smart growth and redevelopment for the region and driven by the following principles:

Public involvement in essential from the beginning A predictable development project review process is important for developers and the affected community Mix-use development promotes a balanced use of the transportation system Density supports transit use Design is important; so are pedestrians Historic preservation maintains community character Economic diversity is important

Miami, FLFlorida has experienced more growth than any other state in the nation for the past sixty years. This rapid growth has caused congestion, resource depletion, and land consumptive sprawl, which has led to a deteriorated quality of life for Floridians. These concerns prompted state government to enact growth management legislation that has catalyzed many local governments to adopt transit- oriented compact growth patterns for future development. "The state has more municipalities with explicit "smart-growth" development codes than anywhere in the country, and it's currently in the planning stages of an ambitious statewide high-speed rail system". Despite Florida's transit-supportive goals and objectives, progress in promoting TOD in the state has been slow. Florida's state transportation plan mandates transit supportive strategies to be included in local plans but lacks any specific standards to adhere by. In fact, densely populated Miami-Dade County is the only municipality in Florida to have a mass rail transit system, thus having the ability to initiate TOD projects-but has only done so with limited success. Nonetheless, Miami-Dade County has made efforts to attract TOD developers and increase ridership through transit-joint development opportunities and public-private partnerships. Florida's state statute permits transit authorities to have partnership agreements with private parties "for joint public-private transportation purposes to further economic development in this state and generate revenue for transportation". This progressive statue has been instrumental for in generating TOD project partnerships not possible otherwise. Miami-Dade Transit is the agency that oversees the daily operations for Miami Metrorail, Metromover, Metrobus, and Paratransit services. Metrorail is a 21-mile elevated rapid rail transit line that also connects to Southeast Florida Tri-Rail system. The Metromover is the downtown Miami transit system and is free to Florida citizens over 65 years old. The Metrobus system connects the various rapid transit systems to more suburban parts of the city.The County adopted a zoning classification called the "Rapid Transit Zone" (RTZ) and has used it as a tool to incentivize joint-development partnerships. The zoning classification refers to the land and airspace needed, according to County Commissioners, to construct transit infrastructure. The zoning code does not restrict any land use, but must be "appropriate and compatible" with Miami's mass transit system and ridership convenience. In addition, the zoning code does not have any pre-existing issues, which allows the county to write project-specific zoning codes after a joint-development project submittal, providing an optimal and predictable review process for developers. Local municipalities in the county have used smaller scale incentives for TOD such as lower parking requirements, density bonuses, land assembly, and capital improvements near rail stations.Additional efforts include the adoption of the County's 2001 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), which prohibits land uses that are not conducive or complimentary to dense mixed-use development around transit station nodes. Miami-Dade County's efforts to promote TOD are certainly noteworthy but have not thrived for a variety of reasons:

Lack of intergovernmental coordination with municipalities in the County Existing land uses that are difficult to retrofit into transit-oriented development (ie: wide-spread single

family and separated single land uses) Elevated transit systems are challenging to provide frequent and adequate pedestrian access for, lack of

urban design

According to Miami-Dade's assistant planning director, "Even where densities are transit supportive, the urban fabric surrounding transit stations is not conducive to transit usage or the creation of fine-grain mixture of land uses needed to create a vital urban neighborhood". Despite these obstacles, the County is making plans to extend the Metrorail by 90 miles and add 50 new transit stations in hopes to attract new joint-development opportunities. To support these efforts, a 0.5% tax increase was passed by Miami voters in 2002 and is known as

the "People's Transportation Plan" and is projected to raise approximately $150 million dollars a year for mass transit capital improvements.

The City of Miami recently adopted a form-based code known as "Miami 21" to organize future development into predictable smart growth patterns. Major development goals include:

Maintaining the future growth capacity of Downtown Miami to ensure it preeminence as the transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly focus for the region's economic, civic and cultural activities

Rebuilding the city's commercial corridors to function as mixed-use, transit-oriented, walkable centers for adjacent residential neighborhoods

Ensuring that private development contributes to increased infrastructure capacity, and through building embellishes a pedestrian-friendly public realm of highest ambient quality

Establishing a rational process for successional growth in areas identified for density and growth

Major TOD guiding principles at the city scale (2.1.3.1): New development should be structured to reinforce a pattern of neighborhoods and urban centers,

focusing growth at transit nodes rather than along corridors Transportation corridors should be planned and reserved in coordination with land use The city should include a framework of transit pedestrian and bicycle systems that provide alternatives to

automobile use

Major TOD guiding principles at the community scale (2.1.3.2): Neighborhoods and urban centers should be compact, pedestrian-oriented, and mixed use. Density and

intensity of use should relate to degree of transit service. Interconnected networks of thoroughfares should be designed to disperse and reduce the length of

automobile trips and encourage walking. A range of open space, including parks, squares and playgrounds should be distributed within neighborhoods and urban centers

Midtown Miami East Special District (627.1.1)This district is of special interest given its proximity to downtown and the future proposed commuter transit facilities within the Florida East Coast Railway Corridor. The intent of the district is to (1) promote the efficient use of land resources through compact building forms, infill development, and moderation in street and parking standards in order to reduce automobile traffic and promote multi-modal transportation. (4) Provide intensive new housing opportunities needed to sustain future commercial growth and commuter transit facilities.

Miami WorldCenter Goals (16.12.1)The conservation goals include conserving energy and reducing carbon emissions through improved street connectedness and encourage walkability, and transit use, increase tree canopy, and encouraging green buildings.

Miami WorldCenter Development Goals (16.12.1.1)a) Specific areas that are compact, pedestrian-oriented and mixed use. Increased density and intensity of use is

encouraged due to the proximity of current and proposed transit service and appropriate building densities and land uses should occur within walking distance of transit stops.

g) Ensuring that private development contributes to infrastructure and embellishes a pedestrian and transit-friendly public realm of the highest quality

Thoroughfares: General Principals (3.8)(3.8.1)a) Thoroughfares are intended for use by vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic and to provide access to lots and open spaces.b) Thoroughfares consist of lanes for vehicles, transit, bicycles, and Public Frontages

*Parking ratios may be reduced within ½-mile radius of TOD and ¼-mile radius of transit corridor by 30% (except when site is within 500' of a T3)

Chicago, ILChicago has an expansive MetraRail commuter corridor system to support suburban growth the region has endured for decades. Recent trends have led growth to occur along the corridor, returning growth to interior parts of the city. Chicago has an opportunity to promote TOD by revitalizing established commuter corridors and suburban transit nodes where MetraRail is planning suburb-to-suburb commuter rail service.

Retrofitting commuter-rail corridors to vibrant TOD communities will be challenging. Commuter rail systems typically serve suburban residents that commute to the city, operating at high capacity only during peak commuting times. Additionally, commuter rail typically use the same rail infrastructure as freight rail, thus routed through heavy industrial areas that are not conducive to TOD. Further, many Chicago suburban commuter rail stations are surrounded by parking lots for daily commuters, hindering opportunities to generate TOD.

Despite these obstacles, the market demand for urban living near transit continues to increase for the region and developers and Chicago area local governments are starting to take notice, making efforts to meet that demand. Local governments have used various planning tools and strategies to initiate, facilitate, and implement 12 TOD projects underway, specific tools include:

Development bonuses Eminent domain Open market purchases Site assembly Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Reduced parking standards Rezoning Corridor Planning Grant Program: IDOT dedicates $15 million over 5 years to help fund planning

integration of land-use with major transportation infrastructure and corridor projects. The program includes planning for TOD and the associated tasks such as intergovernmental agreements, affordable housing, multi-jurisdictional development, zoning reviews, public-private planning, and corridor planning.

Regional Technical Assistance Program: gives assistance to local governments in the Greater Chicago region with developing station-area plans and TOD public outreach education.

Arlington HeightsToday, Arlington Heights is Cook County's largest suburban area, serving as a major urban village transportation hub for residents traveling via commuter rail to Chicago. However, like most US edge cities in the 1970s, the region experienced depressed urban neighborhood and commercial decline due massive sprawl and suburbanization development trends. To promote downtown revitalization and transit urban village concept, zoning was amended to permit high-density mix-use development-requiring the ground floor for retail and buildings heights maximums were increased to 140 feet. Two TIF districts were created and parking requirements were reduced near the rail station. Some land assembly for public infrastructure was acquired through eminent domain powers, but site-specific projects were primarily executed through open market purchases. Further, the village has facilitated opportunities for subsidized financing (GAP financing), grants for facade improvements, business relocation, and retail interior building grants.The village constructed an underground parking garage ($30,000 per space), a major public infrastructure investment that provided additional land for TOD projects as well as parking for the nearby apartment buildings. This proved to be a major incentive for developers. The village also relocated the MetraRail station closer to downtown, providing an optimal corridor for TOD. These bold initiatives made by Arlington Heights has re-ignited interest in TOD projects and set a new standard for future area redevelopment.

Current EndeavorsCurrently there are local and federal commitments of 1.35 billion dollars for rail expansion and reconstruction projects. Local officials used pre-development planning of TOD along rail corridors as a platform when they applied for "New Starts" funding from the U.S. Federal Transit Authority. Since the Chicago region has an existing rail system, the committed funding will provide excellent financial resources for station redevelopment, land assembly, and public infrastructure improvements to catalyze transit-oriented development projects.The market for TOD in Chicago is in high demand. Four decades of steady sprawl development has led to frequently congested highways and long automobile commute times. "Paradoxically, sprawl is actually creating conditions conducive to TOD. As growth leapfrogs outward, communities that have been leapt over see TOD as a way to re-center themselves and compete in the changing marketplace". As Chicago unwillingly continues to punish sprawl development residents with relentless traffic congestion, the TOD market will likely significantly increase.

Dallas, TXThe Dallas-Ft. Worth area has experienced tremendous TOD growth in the last few decades. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) executive director Roger Snoble, an urban planner, took the initiative and allocated resources towards creating good land use and transportation connections to promote smart and economic growth for the Dallas region. Since Dallas has relatively low densities, similar to other Sunbelt cities, identifying opportunities for TOD was challenging from the beginning. Despite regional low-intensity development, DART has proved to be a model for successful suburban TODs, as they have successfully met the challenge of providing mobility options for sprawling Dallas suburbs.

Snoble conducted market research on possible station development opportunities including demographics, available land, and aerials. He packaged that information into marketing brochures to incentivize developers into considering TOD joint development agreements, essentially conducting free, yet crucial risk analysis research. This marketing tool proved invaluable when facilitating joint development agreements, as it saves the developer research fees and provides some profit predictability. Snoble's early TOD efforts paid off.

As of 2007, DART's rail systems catalyzed over $4.26 billion dollars in new development (DART, 2008)). This was especially impressive as DART had only been offering passenger rail service since 1996. The early success of Dallas TOD was aggressively advertised, and confirmed by a University of North Texas real estate market research study in 1999. The study confirmed that properties within a quarter mile of DART stations had 39% higher property values when compared to similar properties outside of the quarter mile radius. A 2003 follow up study found TOD properties had increased 53% more than similar properties not served by rail. Dallas has had the most TOD success with two specific projects: Mockingbird and Addison Circle transit stations. This success has prompted a widespread interest in TOD from other local Dallas-area governments in the region including Carrolton, Plano, and Richardson.

Carrolton Carrolton is a northern suburb city of Dallas has made concerted efforts to develop TOD design guidelines, zoning amendments, and policy language to compliment DART's rapid growth in the region. Efforts began with non-stop express bus service to downtown Dallas in 1984. Since then Carrolton has continuously voted increase taxes to fund DART access improvements and as a result, will be included on the DART light rail "Green Line" in December 2010.

Carrolton is a product of low-density sprawling Greenfield development and annexation. In 1988, the city developed "Old Downtown Carrolton Plan" to strategize ways to increase the local tax base and revitalize the downtown area, despite the lack of accessible land for development. As DART continued to increase transit service in the area, Carrolton realized the potential of increasing densities around transit access points to catalyze development opportunities. This realization led the city to adopt a new Transit Center Zoning District Ordinance with extensive TOD design guidelines. Additionally, the city council adopted a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone to fund public infrastructure improvements, specifically for TOD projects.

Additionally, Carrolton funded several TOD planning efforts including a Downtown Carrolton TOD Plan, a TOD Transportation and Parking Master Plan, a TOD Drainage Master Plan, and a TOD Infrastructure Master Plan. The Federal Transit Agency rewarded DART's and Dallas' regional TOD initiatives, approving a $700 million Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) that will support a 21-mile northeast/southeast connector line. Carrolton will receive approximately $360 million dollars for their portion of the connector line.

Plano

Plano is a service-based economy suburb north of downtown Dallas. Campus-style office complexes abruptly infiltrated the 72-square mile town in the 1980s. Community leaders wanted reorganize the influx of growth, capitalizing on redevelopment opportunities to create development patterns consistent New Urbanism and TOD guiding principles. The focus was on revitalizing the downtown with a new zoning code that promoted mixed-use, set parking maximums, updated architectural design guidelines, increased density, and reduced setback requirements. Initial efforts included streetscape and other aesthetic improvements in the downtown core. In 1995, Plano acquired full-time DART bus service, prompting a strategically placed "destination" platform for transit patrons within ¼ mile of the mixed-use zoning district. This strategy optimized opportunities for ridership and downtown pedestrian traffic, as the platform essentially became Plano's transit hub-formally known as Eastside Village.

Eastside Village contains 234 loft apartments and 15,000 S.F. of ground-floor commercial space. Additionally the site has two performing arts centers, a museum, and a park. While project planning was underway, Plano sought ways to expand it, capitalizing on the DART platform hub. The developer purchased the 2-acre adjacent property from an old utility company, conveniently located beside an additional acre of vacant city-owned land. Thus, there were 3-acres available for an Eastside Village expansion project. The second phase of Eastside Village,

similar in size to the first phase, contains 229 loft apartments and 25,000 S.F. of ground-floor retail. The second phase was completed a year and a half after the first and both are at 98% capacity.

The Eastside Village TOD project has catalyzed continuous redevelopment efforts in the downtown area. The city has continued to implement streetscape improvements with new lighting, street furniture, and decorative pavers. Other promotional development tools used are a TIF district, a "neighborhood empowerment" zone that reduces impact fees, and a historic preservation tax-abatement program. Plano's initiatives have paid off and have resulted in DART extending their red light rail line, providing light rail service to the city of Plano.

Addison Circle

Addison Circle is an interesting, untraditional TOD case study in Dallas as it is only served by bus, not light rail. In the 1970s, Addison was a popular restaurant and entertainment district but also was subject to degradation and economic decline due to decentralized suburbanization by the early 1990s. To curb further decline, the town held visioning exercises, "Vision 2020", to determine how and where to guide future growth. The residents insisted to aim for a developing a dense urban neighborhood to attract DART transit services. The visionary concept was refined into comprehensive language in Addison's update in 1991.

Since developer Robert Shaw of Columbus Realty Trust had built other successful TOD projects in the region, he was a prime candidate for Addison to select for a public-private partnership opportunity. He hired RTKL architects and planners to assist the city in drafting a new "urban center" zoning district ordinance, which was adopted in 1995. Addison entered into a development agreement that required $9 million in TIF-financed infrastructure improvements including an art exhibit plaza, parks, streets, and streetscape features.

Addison Circle presently contains 2,427 multi-family residential units, 550,000 S.F. of office, and 75,000 S.F. of retail space, with two additional tracts left undeveloped. Since the original deal between Addison and Columbus Realty, other developers developed some tracts. However, Addison's success can be credited to the shared TOD vision between Robert Shaw, RTKL & Associates, and Addison.

Mockingbird StationMockingbird station is a mixed-use urban center that has emerged as a model suburban TOD project, also serving as a bus and rail transit node. The project was a risk for developer Ken Hughes, considering there was nothing like it in Texas at the time. Additionally, private development dollars financed the project-no public subsidies were used. The developer did not campaign for public funding because he simply wanted the project to be straightforward, not delayed by public-involvement-red-tape. Coincidently, the Mockingbird Station land was zoned mixed-use, thus no land-use change was needed for the project.

Mockingbird Station is comprised of 211 loft-style apartments, 150,000 S.F. of office space, Movie Theater, and 180,000 S.F. of retail space. There are 1,440 parking spaces, most of which are located underground. Additionally, most of the buildings are adaptive reuses and retrofitted to for mixed-use, common in TODs. The only flaws found in the research were Mockingbird's pedestrian connections to the project's surrounding context. However, this matter is currently being addressed with future intentions to widen sidewalks and implement traffic calming strategies.

TOD in Dallas Today

DART is working with many suburban communities to orient transit service to planned infill and TOD projects. Many of these suburban cities and towns are the proactive players in implanting strategies to attract TOD investment in their communities. DART has complemented their efforts with a TOD Guidelines manual that have specific urban and transportation design guidelines to support TOD. Despite the widespread low-density development trend prevalent across the southeast, suburbs of Dallas has recognized the value-capture opportunities associated with TOD, becoming a model for other southeastern suburbs in demonstrating how and what strategies can be utilized execute TOD.

Denver, COHistory and BackgroundAccording to the Texas Transportation Institute, Denver is ranked fifth worst peak-hour congested city in the U.S. Most peak-hour congestion is the commuting regimen of regional rural community residents driving to employment centers in Denver. The challenge of implementing TOD in the region has been accommodating Denver's surrounding small town communities. In 2005, the Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) joined other local and regional government bodies in planning for TOD by creating Fastracks, a multi-billion dollar transit expansion plan consisting of 122 miles of light rail and commuter rail, 18 miles of Rapid Bus Transit, and 60 new transit stations.

Major TOD Planning Initiatives Metro Vision 2020: calls from transit-supportive development by channeling future growth into existing

centers. Blueprint Denver: divides city into "areas of stability" and "areas of change", demonstrating where

specific types of development should occur based on existing land use and transportation connections. Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan: The City and County of Denver hired TOD experts from

Reconnecting America's Center for Transit-Oriented Development to define TOD typologies in the region to develop strategies for station area planning. Additionally, the document identifies policy and guideline recommendations to facilitate TOD activity near Fastracks Transit System.

Fastrack's Strategic Plan for Transit-Oriented Development: Outlines the role of Fastracks in facilitating TOD projects in the Denver Region.

RTD Transit Access Guidelines: provides guidelines and standards that promote safe and efficient pedestrian access to RTD transit stations.

Zoning Codes and Regulations Denver Form Based Zoning Code (2010) City of Aurora's TOD Zone District

Financial Assistance, Grants, Tax Programs In 2004, a voter-approved sales tax increase of 0.4% became the primary funding source of the Fastracks

plan. TIF Programs Capital Improvement Program General Obligation Bonds 1.4 billion Federal funding dollars to expand Fastrack rail infrastructure. 2.25 million dollars via John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for affordable housing near mass

transit Awarded 10 million from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant Federal Transit Administration awarded Denver's Regional Transportation District 308 million dollars

through a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) to assist funding the West Corridor Project.

Public Infrastructure Investments FasTracks is the regional 6.9 billion dollar transit plan including 122 miles of heavy and light rail and 18

miles of Bus Rapid Transit. T-Rex project: 1.7 billion dollar project that consisted of double-tracked light rail and highway corridor

expansion. Modernization and massive expansion of the historic Union Train Station including:

o 8 at-grade rail tracks for commuter rail and light railo Regional Bus Hub Facilityo Access to the free 16th Street Mall Shuttle Buso Access to the Downtown Circulatoro Variety of designed public spaces

Public/Private Partnerships Union Street Station: Public Private partnership between RTD and private development company, Union

Station Neighborhood Company

Parking Strategic Parking Plan: outlines strategies to reduce the impact parking causes in the physical

environment. Parking is specifically addressed in station area plans per the site's individual characteristics. Fastracks will add 31 new park-and-rides, providing over 21,000 new parking spaces.

ImplementationLocal governments have collaborated with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) to capitalize development potential along the numerous proposed and existing rail corridors. RTD has planned and partially implemented Fastracks, a 6.7 billion dollar mass transit system consisting of light rail, heavy commuter rail, and bus-rapid transit. Funding for Fastracks has been a combination of tax revenue, federal funding, public-private partnerships, and grants. The various funding sources have been dispersed at variable stages of the project; consequently forcing Fastracks to be implemented in phases as funding becomes available.

Despite having to postpone construction on a few transit lines and station areas, Denver is currently laying extensive groundwork for TOD as the Fastracks project moves forward. The new form-based zoning code contains mixed-use zoning districts, specifically designed to accommodate TOD.

Revenue/Value Capture"As of April 2010, nearly 17,400 housing units, 4,900 hotel rooms, 5.3 million square feet of retail space, 5.27 million square feet of office space, 2.3 million square feet of civic space, 160,000 of cultural space, 1.6 million square feet of educational space, 5.96 million square feet of medical-related space, and 2.6 million square feet of convention space are complete or under construction along the various Fastracks corridors". (2010 RTD Fastracks Fact Sheet)

Portland, OR"Portland's experiences with TOD have evolved over 25+ years, from being largely an afterthought to becoming one of the primary considerations in rail facility planning." Core objectives of station-area planning include the following:

Reinforcing the public's investment in light rail by ensuring (via re-zoning) that only transit-friendly development occurs near stations

Recognizing that station areas are special places and the rest of the region is available for traditional development

Seizing the opportunity afforded by rail transit to promote TOD as part of a broader growth management strategy

Re-zoning the influence area around stations to allow only transit supportive uses Focusing public agency investment and planning efforts at stations with the greatest development

opportunity Building a broad-based core of support for TOD with elected officials, local government staff, land

owners, and neighborhoods Setting up a self-sustaining framework to promote TOD once the planning is complete

"The region's vaunted growth management strategy is built around transit. The 2040 Growth Management Strategy, Region 2040, (Build up, Not out) features a tight Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), focusing growth in existing built-up areas and requiring local governments to limit parking and adopt zoning and comprehensive plan changes that are consistent with the growth management strategy. By 2040, two-thirds of jobs and 40 percent of households are to be located in and around centers and corridors served by buses and light-rail transit."Portland's Eastside light-rail line was designed in the 1970's, yet the concept of TOD was not considered until station area plans opened for service in 1986. The city considered the TOD potential of the Eastside project when planning the Westside light-rail project. Westside station alignment locations were strategically placed in areas the city decided future urban development would be most suitable. Although the designated future

development areas were literally vacant greenfields, the Westside light-rail line attracted over 7,000 transit-supportive residential units in 1998.Confident in the transit-supportive development trend by the early 1990s, planning efforts for the Portland Streetcar addressed revitalizing the Central City (Pearl District). Since its opening day in 2001, the Portland Streetcar has catalyzed over 3.4 billion dollars in new development, including over 10,212 residential units along the route.

Using community reinvestment as a guiding principle in growth and development initiatives, in 2004 Portland opted to build an Interstate light-rail line along corridors ideal for urban revitalization instead of fast-track right-of-ways adjacent to Interstate 5. The decision made intended to support quality development over speed efficiency.

Almost every light rail station and corridor is a TOD because of Portland's strong commitment to smart growth and development. A major lesson to take from Portland's success with TOD is that planning is not enough; it must include specific strategies to implement TOD projects. Portland's transit authority, TriMet, and Portland's urban renewal agency, Metro (the regional government), and the Portland Development Commission (PDC) are the major players regarding TOD projects in the region. Their main objectives are gathering a toolbox of incentives to ensure TOD projects have higher densities, more amenities, less parking, and greater affordability.TriMet has been fundamental to Portland's TOD success stories. In addition to sometimes being a direct participant in development, the agency has extensively funded, advocated, and educated about facilitating TOD through the region's vision of "growing up, not out". TriMet has no special funding of for TOD and has to improvise with creative way of financing projects. The agency has utilized TOD as a platform to be a successful organization. Their TOD toolbox includes incentives such as:

Selecting rail alignments with an eye towards TOD Modifying station locations to facilitate supportive development Funding local government planning to get supportive policies in place Writing down land costs to get better design, density, and affordability into TODs Turn park and rides into TODs Investing the savings from rail construction to create TODs

Portland's elected officials, along with visionary guidance from Metro, have been involved in fostering TOD since station area planning began for the Eastside project in 1980. Metro has three full time staff members currently dedicated to the Metro's TOD program in negotiating with 12-15 developers in organizing and contracting future TOD projects, all fundamental to implementing the Region 2040 vision. The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) funds the TOD Program that has a biannual budget of 2.5 million dollars. Those funds are primarily used for site acquisition and have become valuable bargaining tools when negotiating project terms with developers. "Property is acquired, re-parceled, and planned, then sold with conditions to private developers for constructing TOD and/or dedicated to local governments for streets, plazas, and other public facilities where appropriate".Founded in 1958, the Portland Development Commission (PDC) has been responsible for housing, urban renewal, and economic development. According to the PDC's Director of Development, "TOD is part of our mainstream goal of creating mixed use, dense areas, with great pedestrian connectivity. TOD for PDC is more complex than creating great buildings clustered around transit, it is about lifestyle choices, a wider range of everyday living to choose from." PDC's annual budget is $250 million, mostly derived from Tax Increment Financing, and used solely for substantial public benefit projects. PDC also uses a tax abatement program called the 10-year Transit Oriented Development Tax Exemption, an alternative to making initial heavy investments. PDC's most successful investment TOD project is the revitalization Pearl District. Once an industrial warehouse and rail yard district, now boasts Portland's densest residential neighborhoods, mixed-use development, parks, cafes, galleries, and restaurants. The Pearl District was where initial construction of the Portland Streetcar was developed, thus catalyzing redevelopment on a large scale. A central agreement between the city and the owner of the 40 acres of brownfields, Hoyt Properties, essentially implemented the project forward. At completion, the city expects Pearl District to have 5,500 residential units, 1 million square feet of commercial and retail space, and create 21,000 jobs. The primary

goals desired from the agreement were to promote transit use, increase density, create a vibrant district to attract and support new business, preserve historic buildings, and foster the arts. TODs function like blueprint drawings for growth management strategies in the Portland region. The various public Portland agencies with TOD interests have championed the process through a focused agenda in recruiting long-term TOD partnerships with developers, lenders, and contractors, complimented by smart impromptus planning. Although projects were contingent upon private development markets, they would have not been possible without supportive public policies and growing consumer preference.

Portland TOD toolbox snapshotStatewide ToolsUrban Growth Boundary (UGB), 1979

A central tenet of Oregon's Land Use Planning Program. Ensures a 20-year land supply inside and preserves rural areas outside the UGB. Portland's UGB includes 254,000 acres.

Transportation Planning Rule, 1991

Requires metro areas to set targets and adopt actions to reduce reliance on the automobile. Directs them to implement land-use changes to promote pedestrian-friendly, compact, mixed-use development.

Transportation & Growth Management Program, 1993

Promotes high-quality community planning by providing local government grants, Quick Response Teams, and Smart Development Code Assistance. Over $6.7 million in grants from federal transportation funds were provided between 1993-2002.

TOD Tax Exemption, 1995

Allows eligible projects to be exempt from residential property taxation for up to 10 years, The cities of Portland and Gresham have utilized this program.

Vertical Housing Program, 2001

Encourages mixed-use commercial/residential developments in areas designated by communities through partial property tax exemption. Allows a maximum property tax exemption of 80 percent over 10 years.

Regional ToolsRegional Growth Management, 1994

2040 Growth Concept focuses growth on transit centers and corridors inside a tight UGB. Local governments must comply with the regional plan requirements by adopting growth targets, parking maximums, minimum densities, and street connectivity standards.

TOD Implementation Program, 1998

Uses a combination of local and federal transportation funds to spur the construction of TOD. The level of involvement in 12 TODs has ranged from $50,000 to $2 million. The primary use of funds has been for site acquisition and TOD easements.

Local ToolsJoint Development, 1997

TriMet has written down the value of land reflecting "highest and best transit use" to leverage three innovative infill projects along the Westside and Interstate LRT.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

The city of Portland has used TIF for TODs in Urban Renewal districts to make public investments, increase density, and secure affordable housing.

Westside Station-Area Planning, 1993-1997

TriMet, Metro, and ODOT funded preparation and adoption of plans by local governments for the area within ½ mile of LRT stations. Plans included minimum densities, parking maximums, a design overlay for building orientation to transit, and prohibition of automobile-oriented uses.

Cleveland, OhioCleveland has struggled with dwindling population, low-density sprawl, urban blight, and the loss of major manufacturer employers since the 1950's. This has led to significant real estate decline in downtown Cleveland. Recently however, major investments associated with a new Bus-Rapid Transit System (BRT) have catalyzed real estate investment back into downtown Cleveland.

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) initiated downtown revitalization efforts with the proposal of the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, essentially a reconstruction of the major downtown thoroughfare. The Federal Transit Administration selected the project among a few "introductory to America" BRT proposals for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) through the New Starts program. "The centerpiece of the Euclid Corridor project is a 9.4-mile BRT line that runs along Euclid Avenue from downtown's Public Square to East Cleveland" and has 36 new stations. (p.28, breakthrough tech report) The project also included streetscape renovations to enhance the street aesthetics and retrofit a lane of traffic to be a bus-only dedicated lane. Additionally, the project received a major utility upgrade, crucial to the goal of increasing densities in the corridor.

Moreover, it serves as a core connection between the central business district and Cleveland State University-the two largest employment centers in the city, which presented a lucrative opportunity for corridor redevelopment and downtown revitalization. The Euclid Corridor project had the support of a key public-private organization; the non-profit Community Development Corporations (CDC) has development interest representatives from chapters in Downtown, MidTown, and University Circle Areas. The CDCs assists developers with securing tax breaks, facilitates renovation programs, develops TOD-friendly building guidelines, and is a liaison among property owners, developers, and city and transit officials.

Construction began in 2006. Cleveland's BRT system has 36 stations, operates on a 5.7 mile dedicated two-lane median bus lane, using a fleet of heavily marketed "stylized" hybrid-electric buses. The city of Cleveland has adopted 2020 "Citywide Plan", a vision focused on implementing transit-oriented development in the downtown with the new BRT system, emphasizing connectivity, and accessibility to transit. Despite interest in implementing TOD in the city's urban core, Cleveland has implemented only one TOD zoning overlay to MidTown, deeming it unnecessary to create special zoning districts in Downtown and University Circle due to the current repressed

economy. The MidTown overlay specifies that the Euclid Corridor area new or redevelopment projects must be multi-story and facades must face Euclid Avenue. Given the current economic climate, the city has made creative efforts to incentivize new residential, retail, and commercial development in the Euclid Corridor. Examples include:

15-year, 100% property tax abatement for housing redeveloped through conversion of non-residential space

Tax Increment Financing to support public infrastructure projects Storefront Renovation Program that offers rebates for commercial building rehabilitation Historic Preservation tax credits Federal New Market tax credits

Cleveland's RTA has been an active participant in promoting transit-oriented development in the Euclid Corridor as well as other bus-served areas in the city. In addition to the new BRT routes and hybrid bus fleet, RTA has invested in upgrading bus stations, incorporating elements of aesthetic appeal, safety, and comfort. Additionally, RTA has published TOD guidelines, emphasizing the potential for development around the "rapid transit" stations. Additionally, the guidelines state RTA is to work with community stakeholders on station and service designs, and encourage TOD-supportive zoning by offering technical assistance on developing such regulations, as well as seek joint development opportunities.

As of February 2008, development projects that have occurred in the Euclid Corridor since major revitalization efforts began in 2000 is estimated to be over 4.3 billion dollars.

Ottawa, OntarioOttawa, Canada's third largest city, is an accomplished smart growth model thanks to early progressive planning efforts that began in the 1950's. Despite the fact that Ottawa has smart compact development and land-consuming sprawling suburbs, bold historical planning endeavors enabled the region to attain sustainable development patterns fused by transit systems, mitigating typical traffic congestion and poor air quality problems that frequently plague other similar-sized cities (TRANSIT METROPOLIS).

Ottawa's first notable planning effort, implemented by the federal government in 1959, was an open space greenbelt that encompassed the existing urban areas of growth, preventing excessive sprawl and preserve open space. Despite progressive planning initiatives, spotted development seeped onto the other side of the greenbelt. Recognizing the need for additional, continuous planning efforts, the provincial government created the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) in 1969 to administer comprehensive planning, provide technical assistance, and facilitate major infrastructure investments (TRANSIT METROPOLIS).

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton fostered the regions' first major smart growth initiative through the "Official Plan" which outlined general regional development policies, land uses, and capital improvement objectives. RMOC wanted to consider public input to refine policies, thus holding a yearlong series of public input meetings to identify common ideologies regarding future growth and development. (TRANSIT METROPOLIS). The plan was a strenuous process, given the many different opinions from multiple municipalities and their citizens. The central issues addressed in the plan were: (1) population projections, (2) densities, and (3) multi-modal transport connectivity. (urban history review journal) Despite the differing ideas on how and where growth should occur in the region; citizens, municipalities, and regional policy makers all agreed that multi-modal forms of public transportation, referred to in the plan as "transitways" should available region-wide. There were existing city buses before the Official Plan, but they only served the urban areas, not the suburbs. Concerned citizens noted increasing automobile commuter congestion from the suburbs to the urban employment areas, fearing additional growth without public transit would perpetuate the problem. (urban history review journal) The RMOC addressed the mutual concern by refining the Official Plan growth and development concepts into a more specific document referred to as the Regional Development Strategy Plan. (TRANSIT METROPOLIS).

The Regional Development Strategy Plan document had language that allowed "organized" fringe development; however, it also strongly recommended a controversial "transit first" ideology, where mass transit capital outlay rapid-bus projects are prioritized over roadway investments. (urban history review journal) Specifically, the strategy sanctioned market-driven suburban patterns of development and maintained that Ottawa remain the central urban center; but ultimately, locations for future development would be determined by the proximity to existing and proposed Transitways. (TRANSIT METROPOLIS).

Since the plan specifies public transport would to shape urban form, provincial government created the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, also known as OC Transpo, to ensure close coordination of transit plans and development efforts. The OC Transpo immediately began making dedicated-lane bus rapid transit enhancements and improvements for the Ottawa region including new stations, routes, and bus purchases. In particular, the OC Transpo wanted to make certain the new bus rapid transit routes accommodated commuters from the suburbs, providing public transportation to Ottawa's cores. (urban history review journal)

To compliment the Official and Regional Development Plans, OC Transpo and RMOC added a supplementary Transportation Strategy that specifies transit investment locations in relation to the Transitway concept. Despite other comparable Canadian cities investments in light rail at the time, Ottawa continued to make investments in bus-rapid transit infrastructure, as it was on average 25 percent cheaper to build and operate. Because the bus-rapid transit operated on dedicated bus lanes, Transitway commute times were faster and more frequent, saving capital expenditures by allowing the transport of more patrons with fewer buses. Further, to encourage transit ridership, the plan eliminated free downtown parking for public servants; despite the federal government is the primary employer of the region. (TRANSIT METROPOLIS).

As RMOC coordinated with the OC Transpo planning the dedicated bus Transitway, land-use policies also became a central focus. An updated Official Plan focused implementing transit-oriented development at Mixed-Use centers through specific regional and the site-specific land development guidelines. At the micro-site scale, developers must consult with the Councils' planners at early site design stages of a project to ensure conceptual site plans were conducive to daily Transitway operations. (TRANSIT METROPOLIS). Complex mixed-use projects are required to submit a Community Design Plan, delineating specifics of the projects such as building orientation and proximity to transit, passenger drop-off zones, densities, land-use mix ratios, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and proximity to employment offices. (TCRP BRT)

At the macro-regional scale, planners identified appropriate locations for mixed-use town centers along the rapid Transitway, striving to allocate 40% of the region's jobs within 400 meters of a Transitway stop. Depending on the frequency of transit service, the plan designates areas as Primary Employment Centers (PEC) with 10,000 jobs and Secondary Employment Center (SEC) areas with 2,000 to 5,000 jobs. PECs are designated to accommodate mix-use development centers that include office, retail, civic, and residential land uses, whereas SECs are allowed to have less intense service-oriented mixed-use uses. Densities and intensities determine where uses are located; the densest land uses are located closest to transit stations as less intense land uses are farthest away. (TRANSIT METROPOLIS).

As of 2008, Ottawa's Transitway consists of 29 miles of dedicated bus-rapid transit lanes, complete with modern indoor, climate-controlled bus stations. Ridership has increased the past six years by 25%. The Transitway, by law, catalyzes development. 5,336 residential units, 227,794 square feet of institutional, 522,893 square feet of retail and office, and 11,889 square feet of industrial land were developed within a half-mile of the Transitway between 1988-2002. It is estimated that over $1 billion dollars of development is located along the Transitway. (Breakthrough)

Ottawa planners and provincial officials strictly adhered to the "transit-first" principles of the Official Plan, allowing the policies and guidelines to foster a vibrant, sustainable region, despite having to accommodate low-density development patterns. Transitway and its specific land development policies led to high quality control measures have allowed RMOC and OC Transpo to carefully, accurately, and predictably plan for future growth.

CaliforniaSan Francisco

The Bay Area has been serious about public mass transit for decades. However, achieving consensus among nine county and 100 city governments about transportation, growth management, and environmental quality has been challenging. (cervero, 2004)The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the regional planning agency of the nine bay area counties including Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties. (ABAG OVERVIEW) In 2000, ABAG facilitated a visioning process with other Bay Area governmental entities, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), to foster sustainable communities in the Bay Area. That planning initiative led to policies focused on promoting a better housing balance, open space preservation, and focusing land development in existing urban areas in close proximity to transit. (cervero, 2004)

ABAG's policies are more goal-oriented as they are not enforceable per se. ABAG was the principle regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area until California State Legislature created the MTC in 1970, alleviating ABAG from funding allocation responsibilities. Nonetheless, the MTC had similar goals as the ABAG. In 1988, the MTC founded the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program, committing funding to projects that had strong land use and transportation implications, "to strengthen the link between transportation, community goals, and land use". The TLC program primarily disperses capital grants, planning grants, and the Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Most notably, the program has provided crucial funding for TOD projects, facilitating bicycle, pedestrian, and streetscape improvements around stations.(cervero, 2004)

The HIP program was modeled after a San Mateo City/County Association of Government's (C/CAG) TOD incentive program that offered municipalities $2000 for every bedroom within a 1/3 mile of transit and a minimum density of 40 DU per acre. C/CAG's planning tool of incentivizing TOD has promoted more development activity near transit. Other Bay Area incentives include Santa Clara County's sliding-scale impact fee program that drastically reduce developer's impact fees if projects are near transit stops. The success of incentivizing TOD projects at the county level eventually led MTC to adopt TOD incentives for the Bay Area region. (cervero, 2004)

There are many opportunities in the Bay Area for TOD projects, considering the wide variety of transit modes available in the region including bus, light-rail, cable car, streetcar, heavy-rail, commuter-rail, and ferry service. However, several transit agencies operate the different modes of transit, each having their own set of policies and guidelines regarding TOD. Additionally, local governments may have to amend zoning for one TOD project but coordinate with multiple transit agencies with their different TOD guidelines, adding a layer of difficulty in facilitating TOD projects in the Bay Area. (cervero, 2004)

San Jose

Traffic congestion and affordable housing became pressing issues in San Jose, an emerging tech town in the early 1990s, located in Santa Clara County. The problems eventually peaked, prompting Santa Clara County to promote TOD as a key mitigation tool.

The hi-tech boom increased the demand for housing, causing a dramatic increase of home prices. In 1989, the City of San Jose began exploring the potential of TOD and introduced a major Housing Initiative Program, formulating strategies for growth, congestion, affordable housing, and foster adequate job-housing ratios. VTA also acknowledged the area's affordable housing issues, complimenting the city's efforts by conducting analysis on agency-owned station area property that was suitable for higher density residential land uses. The VTA and the city agreed that joint-development partnerships were needed to catalyze TOD in the region. Since the housing initiative's primary goal was to foster TOD, the city conducted a series of transit-land use studies, while VTA sought to lease its transit adjacent land to mix-use developers at market rates. (TRANSIT TOWN)

In the early 1990s, VTA operated several existing San Jose commuter stations, often located in suburban communities, linked by single-family neighborhoods. After extensive transit-land use studies, the city determined low-density commuter corridors were ripe for higher density development. The determination led San Jose to create a new General Development Plan that included the new designation, "transit corridor residential", amending development density guidelines for specific urban and suburban commuter corridors in the new plan. (TRANSIT TOWN)

San Jose city planners continued to foster TOD by analyzing existing transit-rich neighborhoods, essentially conducting site analysis to identify additional future development opportunities, through project expansion and or intensification. From the analysis, city planners created specific plans for transit neighborhoods in transition, outlining individual goals and objectives to achieve with future development. The specific plan proved to be powerful negotiating tools with developers as they provided project predictability. Additionally, the city planners held several educational workshops for other city officials, explicitly to clarify the new planning strategies in the updated General Plan, ensuring future development complemented the new policies. The educational sessions were a crucial component to fostering political championship for the appropriate increase of densities, thus the General Plan policies were cohesively enforced. (TRANSIT TOWN)

VTA often owned property adjacent to transit stations and aggressively sought out joint development opportunities to expand development opportunities around the station and the General Plan's commuter corridors. Commuter stations with underutilized VTA-owned park-and-rides provided significant opportunities for station infill redevelopment. The agency primed stations area plans to market individual package incentive offers for developers, saving investors significant market research costs. One of the most successful TOD projects resulting from VTA's joint development program is the affordable housing initiative at Ohlone-Chynoweth Station, located along the San Jose commuter corridor. (TRANSIT TOWN)

Promoting TOD at the Ohlone-Chynoweth station was complicated from the beginning with two different landowners, three different project proposals, a transit station, and considerable single-family context-transition challenges. The tedious process of orchestrating multiple joint-development agreements required VTA to be creative and practical when hunting project resources. VTA took the creative approach of developing physical planning document, "Transit-Oriented Development Design Concepts", to assist the developers in proposing unfamiliar transit-oriented projects to encourage high quality proposals. The TOD Concept Guide document addressed design considerations specific to TOD such as land-use ratios, pedestrian-to-transit walking distances,

densities, affordable housing, and recommended building types. (CERVERO, 2004) The design concepts also included site-specific transit-oriented design principles for the Ohlone-Chynoweth project, giving project designers a solid, streamlined framework. (TRANSIT TOWN)

The project did have multiple design challenges integrating new development with adjacent uses, but eventually succeeded in developing hundreds of mixed-income residential units. Despite successful residential development activity, the project has not attracted retailers, a crucial component of TOD. However, Ohlone-Chynoweth station is a model development project, demonstrating how cities can take advantage of commuter corridors to foster housing near transit.

TOD has successfully mitigated growing pains that once plagued San Jose and Santa Clara County. The committed partnership between the VTA and the City of San Jose was key to fostering development in commuter corridors. Taking a physical inventory analysis approach to identify opportunities for TOD was a pioneering approach to planning. Further, encouraging growth in suburban commuter corridors demonstrates how the city planned with existing development as opposed to forcing retrofitted typical nodal infill usually coupled with TOD. Additionally, the TOD Design Concept guide proved to be very powerful in leveraging TOD interest and increasing ridership in the San Jose region. So powerful, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District also developed specific TOD Guidelines that emphasize station access priority for pedestrians, bicycles, and buses. The guide went on to serve as an innovative platform for other Bay Area planning and transit agencies to learn and apply to their projects. (CERVERO, 2004)