Click for next page ( 11

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 10
10 details and how they work. The question may also have been reported transit-supportive strategies included tax incentives, difficult to answer owing to the wide variety of municipali- which were cited by eight agencies (28%); funding incen- ties involved for each agency. tives, cited by six agencies (21%); and land incentives, cited by five agencies (17%). Twenty of the 29 respondents to this question (69%) noted that providing written policies in adopted plans provides pos- Twenty-five of the 32 respondents to the survey (78%) itive support for integrating transit into new developments. stated that they had a role in the development of at least one Most regions produce some type of plan that outlines policy of the transit-supportive policies discussed earlier. The poli- and sets goals to achieve a long-term vision. Some regions cies that transit agencies advocated most often included writ- produce multiple plans developed by each individual juris- ten policies in adopted plans, design standards, and zoning. diction. Transit agencies, especially those that do not produce their own plans, should take advantage of this opportunity The survey asked, "Is your agency an active participant in and participate in the development of these plans to insert preparing the long-range land use plan for your region?" language in support of bus transit design elements. Even Twenty-one of the 32 responding transit agencies stated that though some of these plans may not be implemented, the they did participate in the region's long-range land use plan. Of development and active participation by transit staff builds the 11 (36%) that do not participate, one reported that such a awareness of transit needs among local stakeholders and process does not exist and two others participated in other long- improves communication networks. range plans of which land use and transportation were a part. Design standards were identified by 20 respondents (69%) A follow-up question asked, "Aside from the long-range as a supportive strategy. Some municipalities and other juris- land use plan, is there another planning forum to discuss dictions have produced design standards to guide development. land development plans?" Twenty-three agencies (72%) These have included building height, parking, color schemes, responded positively to this question. These respondents signage, pedestrian access, transit facilities, and open space. noted that the transit agency is invited to participate in the development of plans, which include land use issues, for Zoning is a common strategy to support transit and was local municipalities and other governmental entities. Moun- cited by 19 respondents (66%). However, fewer than half tain Metropolitan Transit in Colorado Springs, Colorado, of those provided explanatory details about the zoning in participates in a Land Development Technical Committee their areas. In some cases, respondents noted that zoning is every 2 weeks to review development proposals. At these used to concentrate higher densities in target areas such as meetings, developers and city departments exchange infor- downtowns, "urban villages," or around train stations. mation and ask questions regarding each proposed develop- Two survey respondents mentioned the availability of ment. As another example, the Rhode Island Public Transit "overlay zoning" and one noted the use of "form-based" Authority participated in the state's Housing Resources zoning. Boulder, Colorado, stated that their zoning regula- Commission working group. tions encourage mixed-use development, which it finds encourages transit use. The survey probed for information on the methods used to convince stakeholders that transit adds value to land Parking restrictions and fees and development regulations developments. The survey asked, "Has your agency devel- were the next most commonly cited strategies among respon- oped communication methods to convince developers (or dents at 14 (48%) and 12 (41%), respectively. Some localities others) that bus transit adds value to new developments?" have caps on parking supply or reduced parking require- Fourteen agencies (44%) responded that they had developed ments to encourage the use of alternative transportation some type of communication for this purpose. The methods options. Boulder, Colorado, uses the revenue from parking that these agencies used included letters and conversations, meters in the downtown area to buy Eco Passes for down- coordination with other marketing efforts such as location town employees. Eco Passes provide employers with a low- efficient mortgages and transit benefits programs, messages cost employee benefit designed to encourage transit use and to the news media and the Internet, pressure on developers lessen the demand for on-site parking. from other stakeholder agencies, and provision of design guidelines and other documents that outline the advantages Controlled growth was cited by 10 agencies (34%) as a of integrating transit. Mountain Metropolitan Transit com- successful transit-supportive strategy. Examples of con- pleted an Economic Benefits Study in 2004 that outlines the trolled growth include the Washington State Growth Man- benefits associated with transit. agement Act; Boulder, Colorado's open space program and annual growth cap; Oregon's urban growth boundary for SECTION E. EXPERIENCE IN INTEGRATING sewer and water; Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in BUS SERVICE IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS Washington, D.C., to encourage TOD with less impact on roads; and a voluntary growth boundary established through This section of the survey probed for the transit agency experi- the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Other ence in new developments. Respondents were asked to provide

OCR for page 10
11 No. of Responses 14 8 7 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 No Involvement = 1 Full Partner = 5 FIGURE 2 Transit agency involvement in the land development process. examples of successful as well as unsuccessful coordination Transit agencies were asked to rate their involvement in projects. the land development process on a scale of one to five, where one represented no involvement and five represented a full The first question in this section asked survey participants, partner in the process. The answers display an almost perfect "In the past five years what types of development has your bell curve (see Figure 2). Fourteen agencies responded in the area experienced?" The respondents could choose from any middle at number 3. Seven believed that they were almost a of the following responses: full partner and one responded that it was a full partner. On the other end of the spectrum, one agency responded that it Reuse of vacant industrial land (brownfields) along had no involvement in the process and eight believed that existing transit routes, they had almost no involvement. Three respondents noted New or more intense use of existing developed land that this answer was dependent on the particular jurisdiction along transit routes, and one agency did not answer the question. Other infill along transit routes, Development of previously undeveloped land (green- Transit agencies were also asked to choose a statement fields), that best conveys how well bus transit had been coordinated Reuse of vacant industrial land (brownfields) where no into new developments. Respondents were asked to choose transit existed, one of the following: New or more intense use of existing developed land where no transit existed, All developments are coordinated, Other infill where no transit existed, and Most are coordinated, None. About half are coordinated, Some are coordinated, or Most of the 32 respondents had experienced development None are coordinated. across a wide range of land types such as brownfields, infill, or greenfields. The highest number of responses (30) was for The responses are shown in Figure 3. Fifty percent of the development that had occurred in greenfields, where develop- respondents noted that "some" of the projects are coordi- ment had not previously existed. For the remaining develop- nated. Forty-one percent reported that "most" or "all" of the ment types, development along existing transit lines was projects are coordinated. reported slightly more frequently than development where no transit had previously existed. Only one agency, Honolulu, The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority based in reported that no development had occurred in their service area. Aspen, Colorado, noted that it is typically called after the 18 16 16 No. of Responses 14 12 10 8 8 5 6 4 2 1 2 0 None Some Half Most All No. of Coordinated Projects FIGURE 3 Number of new developments coordinated with bus transit service.

OCR for page 10
12 development is well on its way to completion and at that time the affirmative and multiple responses to this question were asked where the Authority would like the bus stop located. allowed. The reasons for providing the service are shown The developer could have inquired during the design phase in Table 4. whether the Authority would provide service to the develop- ment and ask what fee is required to provide new service to Of the 18 agencies that provided new bus service to a suc- this location. Cleveland, Ohio; Miami, Florida; and Ann cessful development, 10 responded that the bus service itself Arbor, Michigan, noted that much of the development occurs was successful, although one commented only marginally so. on the fringe or outside of the service area, where it is much The remaining agencies commented that it was either too more difficult to provide good service levels and where the soon to tell or that the project was not yet completed. Most pedestrian infrastructure is poor. respondents replied that ridership levels determine the suc- cess of the service. Five agencies reported that productivity The survey requested the following information: "In the measures (e.g., riders per hour) would also be used to gauge table below, please list up to three examples of new devel- the success of the service. opments that successfully supported bus transit services. For each example cite the primary factors that led to the Ten agencies reported that new bus transit service was not project's success." Twenty-seven agencies reported that at provided to the new development. The primary reason given least one new development built within their service area had for the absence of new service was that existing service successfully supported bus transit. The two factors that were already served the development. New York City Transit noted most often cited as the reason for the successful integration in its response that King Plaza Mall, an existing bus termi- of transit into the development included strong support by the nal, had been expanded as part of a redevelopment project, local municipality and transit's inclusion in the early plan- but that no new services can be implemented because there ning for the project. Other factors included strong support by is still no room in the terminal for new services. One respon- a planning organization, initiative by the land owner or dent had not provided service to the development because the developer, and existence of a close working relationship with project construction was not yet completed. stakeholders. The challenges encountered when implementing the new Transit agencies were asked to identify one project that service were varied. One challenge involved the need to they believed was the most successful in integrating transit realign service to enter a new shopping mall, which incon- into the project. Survey participants were then asked a series venienced through-routing passengers with longer travel of questions regarding that one project. The first question times. Some respondents noted that to serve a new develop- agencies were asked was if their organization had been in- ment, existing service was restructured and formerly served volved in the planning and design decisions affecting the new development. Twenty-three of the 27 agencies with a success- TABLE 4 ful development replied that they were involved in the plan- REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING BUS SERVICE ning process. Of these 23 agencies, 15 were involved from the TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS very beginning of the planning process, 7 were involved after Responses it started but still early in the process, and 1 was involved about No. Percent half way through the process. These answers correspond to the Desire to Serve a Traffic Generator 15 35 preceding question, which identified early inclusion in the planning process as one factor that most contributed to the suc- Expected Density Warranted Service 10 23 cessful integration of transit with development. Request from an Elected Official 5 12 Conversely, the four agencies not involved in the planning process stated that they were contacted late in the process or Community Request 3 7 at the end. It is somewhat surprising that these four agencies still achieved successful projects even when they were not Partnership with Development 3 7 included early in the process. Upon investigation it was learned that two of the projects ultimately were successful as Request from Developer 2 5 a result of decision makers being transit-supportive. A third project had just initiated construction and it was too early to Opportunity to Restructure Service 2 5 tell if the project would indeed be successful. The fourth Utilization of New Facility 1 2 project was the result of a political process that ultimately required the restructuring of service. Within Development Policy Decision 1 2 Survey recipients were asked if new or realigned bus ser- vice had been implemented to serve the development that State Provided Funding 1 2 they identified as successful. Eighteen agencies responded in