National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning (2006)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Survey Results

« Previous: Chapter Two - Literature Review
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14002.
×
Page 15

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7A survey of select transit agencies was conducted to obtain the perspective of transit agencies regarding the coordination of bus transit and land development. Sixty transit agencies were selected to participate in the survey. These agencies were chosen to participate if they met one or more of the fol- lowing criteria: • Recommended by a topic panel member, • Participated in FTA’s BRT demonstration program, • Identified during the literature review, or • Provided balance in terms of size or geographic location. A total of 32 completed surveys were returned in time for inclusion in this report. The survey was divided into the following six sections: A. Transit Agency Characteristics B. Stakeholders and Communications C. Transit Agency Development Guidelines D. Transit-Supportive Strategies E. Experience in Integrating Bus Service in New Developments F. Open-Ended Opinions (In Your Opinion . . .). The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. The number of responses to each question is shown in parenthe- ses on the survey instrument. A summary of the responses by section is provided here. SECTION A. TRANSIT AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS The first section provided contact information on the survey respondents as well as transit agency characteristics in terms of size and modes provided. Of the 32 survey respondents, 11 were returned from transit agencies with more than 500 buses, 13 from agencies with 100 to 500 buses, 6 from agen- cies with 50 to 100 buses, and 2 from agencies with fewer than 50 buses. The limited representation by smaller agencies may signify that this issue is not perceived as critical for smaller agencies. Respondents represented all areas of the country as surveys were returned from California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The list of responding agencies is presented in Appendix B. All but one of the respondents reported that they operated bus transit service in multiple jurisdictions. This is notable for this project because local governments retain the respon- sibility for land use decisions. A good communications net- work between local government and the transit agency is critical for the successful integration of transit and land use. Developing these networks with multiple jurisdictions can be a monumental task for resource-strapped transit agencies. SECTION B. STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS This section asked questions about stakeholders in the devel- opment process and communications among stakeholders. Respondents were asked, “Typically, how does your organi- zation first become aware of future new developments?” Multiple responses to this question were allowed so the answers total more than the number of respondents. Table 1 illustrates the ways that transit agencies become informed of new developments. The “Other Methods” listed in the table include formal notifications from the state or regional plan- ning agencies and attendance at regularly scheduled planning meetings. According to the respondents, local jurisdictions, munic- ipalities, and/or counties are primarily responsible for the physical design of public elements within new developments. In a few instances, regional planning agencies and states were cited in addition to the local jurisdictions. Figure 1 illustrates how well these lead agencies supported transit when reviewing plans for new developments. Several respondents noted that the answer to this question was highly dependent on the jurisdiction. In many areas the transit agency serves multiple jurisdictions, and some jurisdic- tions do a better job of considering transit elements than others. Communication methods are also highly variable. Once again this is dependent on the jurisdiction. However, it is also dependent on the size of the development. Larger devel- opments tend to have transit agencies included in the review, but smaller developments “fall through the cracks.” Both formal and informal communication methods are used CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS

between the transit agency and local governments. Transit agencies also have both formal and informal communica- tions with developers, and more than half of the responding transit agencies had formal or informal communications with community groups. SECTION C. TRANSIT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Transit agency development guidelines were the subject of the survey’s third section. This section probed for the con- tents of existing guidelines and copies of existing documents were requested. Of the 32 respondents, 9 (28%) had devel- oped guidelines. In addition, four agencies were in the process of developing guidelines and two agencies had developed rail joint development guidelines. A list of the agencies providing guidelines is presented in Appendix C. The purposes of the guidelines were varied, but most cited by the respondents included one or more of the following elements: • Provide specific design guidance to developers and jurisdictions. 8 • Ensure that transit elements are built to appropriate specifications. • Ensure adequate access to transit. • Streamline the development process. • Make all stakeholders aware of the opportunities transit provides. The survey asked, “How are developers (or others) encouraged to use the guidelines?” In Orlando, where there are strong planning requirements, developers are required to use the guidelines, at least for larger developments. In some cases, respondents noted that city governments encouraged developers to use the guidelines, and some cities require it as part of the permit or rezoning processes. In Chicago, the Plan Commission has adopted the Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA’s) guidelines. It is interesting to note that only four transit agencies responding to the survey make their guide- lines available on-line. On-line access appears to be an easy method of making the guidelines available and could encour- age developers’ use of them. A list of possible guideline components was provided to the survey recipients as shown in Table 2. Guideline components were differentiated into two types: those per- taining to development characteristics and those regarding technical specifications. The survey asked respondents to identify the components contained in their guidelines. Within the development characteristics, most agency guidelines include the incorporation of bus stops, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, pedestrian ameni- ties, and directness of pedestrian path. Approximately half of the respondents also included recommendations on site planning, land use, density, streets, sidewalks, open space, building design, parking, bicycle amenities, security, and landscaping. A few respondents provided additional develop- 3 12 9 8 0 5 10 15 Rarely Sometimes Usually Always N o. o f R es po ns es TABLE 1 HOW TRANSIT AGENCIES BECOME INFORMED OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS FIGURE 1 Frequency of transit support by lead agencies. Responses Methods No. Percent Formal Communications with Local Government 27 24 Informal Communications with Local Government 21 19 Staff Observations 18 16 News Media 17 15 Call from Developer 16 14 Public Inquiries 8 7 Other Methods 6 5

9ment characteristics such as shelter design, bus pull-out bays, and signalization. Additional development characteristics are cited by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Jose, Cal- ifornia. These include the role of local governments, methods to overcome barriers, community area design, and a model policy for integrating transportation and land use. The model policy is an example that jurisdictions can adopt to support VTA’s Community Design and Transportation Program. Technical specifications within transit agency development guidelines include dimensions and overall requirements of transit elements. More than 75% of the survey respondents include in their guidelines technical specifications for bus size, bus stop paving, stop length, shelter size, bus turning radii, and ADA requirements. Technical specifications on bus stop spac- ing, stop placement, turnaround requirements, shelter design, roadway width, and sidewalk width are included in approxi- mately half of the respondent guidelines. Less than half of the respondents include technical specifications for bicycle stor- age, roadway paving, parking spaces, or lots. Additional spec- ifications cited by respondents include acceptable walking dis- tance (LYNX) and BRT requirements (VTA). The survey asked respondents, “Are there elements that you or other stakeholders would like to add to your guidelines to enhance their usefulness?” Responses included pedestrian connections and amenities, bus stop standards, shelter types and dimensions, bus turnaround requirements, sidewalk dimensions, and guidance on which type of transit alternative works best with particular land use types. Transit agencies were also asked, “Does your agency have any other guidelines, regulatory authority, or published poli- cies that support the integration of bus transit service with new development projects?” The responses included the fol- lowing: Pedestrian Technical Guidelines, Policy Principles on Service Design, Transit Guidelines for Developing Communities, Transit Development Plan/Program, Trans- portation Master Plan, Joint Development Policy/Plan, and Bicycle Technical Guidelines. SECTION D. TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES Section D requested information on transit-supportive strate- gies. A list of 10 strategies was provided and respondents were asked to describe each strategy employed in their region. Respondents checked as many strategies as applied to their areas, and the total number of responses to this ques- tion was 118 (see Table 3). Transit agency awareness of these types of strategies appears to be low based on the lack of explanatory details provided. Transit planners may not have direct contact with these policies because they are generally the purview of city planners. Although they may be familiar with the terms, they may have little understanding of the Development Characteristics Technical Specifications Site Planning Bus dimensions Density Bus stop paving Sidewalks Bus stop placement Bus Stops News media Parking Bus turnaround requirements Bicycle Amenities Turning radii Landscaping Bicycle storage Directness of Pedestrian Path Sidewalk width Land Use Bus stop spacing Streets Bus stop length Open Space Bus shelter dimensions/design Building Design Roadway width Pedestrian Amenities Roadway paving Security Parking spaces/lots ADA Elements ADA requirements Others Others Note: ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act. TABLE 2 POTENTIAL COMPONENTS OF TRANSIT AGENCY DESIGN GUIDELINES Strategies No. of Responses Respondents (%)* Written Policies in Adopted Plans 20 69 Design Standards 20 69 Zoning 19 66 Parking Restrictions and Fees 14 48 Development Regulations 12 41 Controlled Growth 10 34 Tax Incentives 8 28 Funding Incentives 6 21 Land Incentives 5 17 Others 4 14 *Twenty-nine respondents answered this question. TABLE 3 TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES USED IN RESPONDENT AREAS

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

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

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

13 areas were left without transit service. One respondent noted that a lack of market research to determine the probable ori- gins and destinations of patrons within the new development was a challenge. Determining what bus lines to reroute or how to design a new route to serve the development is very difficult without adequate market research. Other challenges included inadequate facilities discov- ered after construction was completed, such as missing or undersized turnarounds and missing landing pads at bus stops. In one case, the attraction of the newly implemented bus service resulted in a heavy concentration of pedestrians in an otherwise automobile-dominated landscape. This cre- ated concern among local elected officials, because adequate facilities for pedestrians were not present. Inadequate resources to add service is a common problem and service is sometimes restructured to find resources for the new service. One transit agency noted that although there has been growth and development in the area, there has been no corresponding growth in the amount of funding the agency receives for operations. This is probably typical for many tran- sit agencies and points to a major problem for serving new developments. Even in those cases where new service is war- ranted, there may not be funds to support it. Respondents were also asked to provide examples of devel- opments that did not support transit service. For each example, the respondents provided factors explaining why transit was not supported in the development. These factors were grouped into “front-end issues” and “outcomes.” Front-end issues are related to a lack of regional practices, planning processes, or poor tran- sit perceptions. The outcomes are generally the result of the front-end issues and prohibit the provision of adequate bus tran- sit service in the development. Listed here are the front-end issues and outcomes identified by the survey respondents. • Front-end issues – Lack of financial support for transit service, – Lack of political support for transit service, – Historical development of land without sidewalks or connected streets, – Owners and developers unfavorably disposed to transit, – Review process fast-tracked, – Refusal to allow transit agency to review plans, and – Transit viewed as unimportant to new development. • Outcomes – Poor pedestrian connections, – Too much free parking, – Poor site design with buildings set back from arteri- als and/or service, – Low-density developments that cannot support tran- sit service, – Streetscaping that displaces bus stops, – Poor office and shopping center roadway circulation or weight-bearing ability, – Inadequate street networks, – Cul-de-sacs and gated communities, – Inadequate provision of transit facilities, and – Developer-operated shuttle competes with transit service. SECTION F. IN YOUR OPINION . . . This section contained seven open-ended questions designed to obtain respondent opinions on a variety of issues surround- ing the integration of land developments and bus transit. These questions are listed here with a summary of the answers. What types of facilities or amenities for bus service are generally lacking in new developments? The most frequent response to this question was the need to provide basic pedestrian amenities. Sidewalks appear to be a consistent and somewhat surprising oversight on the part of developers. Because all travelers, even automobile users, begin and end their trips as pedestrians, the provision of sidewalks and walkways through parking lots would seem to be an obvious need. Access to bus stops and unobstructed pathways through the surrounding neighborhoods is also inadequate in many developments. Other pedestrian ameni- ties often omitted from development designs included pedestrian-level lighting and crosswalks. One respondent noted: “In the past, sidewalks were not included in many new developments. This is no longer the case, but we are still dealing with their absence in developments from 10–20 years ago.” After pedestrian amenities, the lack of bus stop amenities and adequate street networks was the next most frequent response. Appropriate bus stop locations, shelters, benches, concrete landing pads, roadway width, and an interconnected roadway grid were identified as missing elements in new developments. Transit facilities that should have been incor- porated into new developments included bus bays, turn- arounds, information displays, and park and ride lots. Transit-supportive densities, a mixture of land use, appro- priate building orientation, funding for new service, and a lack of understanding of the long-term value of transit were all mentioned at least once by respondents as deficiencies in planning for new developments. What design aspects of new developments inhibit the effective provision of transit service? Survey respondents provided their opinions on the elements of new developments that inhibit the effective provision of transit service. One respondent answered, “PARKING—free and plenty of it! Large setbacks (no street frontage), cir- cuitous access.” Building orientation was cited by nine

respondents. Large setbacks from the street with “oceans” of parking between the street and the entrance were a common occurrence. Indirect paths for both pedestrians and the street network were also cited as design problems in new develop- ments. Circuitous street networks with cul-de-sacs and other traffic calming techniques slow transit to a crawl—that is, if provision of bus service is even possible. Likewise, travel times for pedestrians are greatly increased when walled or gated communities obstruct the direct pedestrian path. Another impediment noted by a number of respondents was low-density development, both residential and commercial. It is not economical to serve areas where the market is dis- persed over a large geographic area. In addition, walking dis- tances to the building entrances in low-density development are generally too long to make transit use attractive. What factors contribute most to the successful integration of bus transit planning and land development planning? This question asked respondents to identify factors that con- tribute most to the successful integration of bus transit plan- ning and land development planning. The factor most often cited was early participation in the development’s planning and design. The second factor reported most often was inter- ested, some said “enlightened,” developers who were willing to discuss the development’s design and who were genuinely interested in providing a quality transit environment. Strong support by local government was cited by seven respondents. Other important factors included transit-supportive densities, good pedestrian connections, a good street network, and good communications between all stakeholders. An interest- ing factor suggested by one agency was having the in-house ability to “sell” transit to developers, local governments and communities. Unfortunately, transit planners do not neces- sarily have the skill and/or the time to conduct this activity. Why is it difficult to integrate bus transit planning into land development planning? Respondents were asked to expand on the challenges associated with integrating bus transit planning and land development planning. Most answers were related to the perceptions of developers and the developer’s operating con- straints. Respondents reported that developers often had neg- ative perceptions regarding transit and are unable to conceive of any benefits associated with transit. Furthermore, transit requires the removal of parking spaces that developers believe are important to the economic viability of their proj- ects. One respondent noted that “. . . often developers view transit as unattractive and as a parking encroachment prob- lem.” In addition to these perceptions, developers have strict schedules and budgets. The incorporation of transit into their developments may expend additional resources, and transit improvements are not viewed as adding to the development’s profitability. Lastly, many developers prefer to do what is 14 familiar and develop property in similar styles to what has been built in the past. Respondents provided additional explanations as to why it is difficult to integrate bus transit planning and land devel- opment planning. One respondent offered the following: “Buses are not viewed as permanent fixtures to a develop- ment. As a result transit is often an afterthought.” Another respondent noted that the many-to-many trip-making pattern common in today’s society is not conducive to taking bus transit. At least one respondent noted that bus transit is not considered a viable commuter option for the suburbs. A lack of resources on the part of transit operators inhibits the integration of bus transit and land development. This was mentioned by several agencies. Transit agencies do not have the financial resources to expand service into new areas or to maintain new transit facilities. Two respon- dents remarked that human resources are unavailable to par- ticipate in land development planning or to review new development proposals. Other factors included the absence of political support and a lack of transit-supportive policies and regulations. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve the integration of bus service planning and land development planning? Several respondents provided suggestions and ideas that they believed would improve the integration of bus service plan- ning and land development planning. Regulatory methods were the most frequently cited. Agencies recommended that zoning ordinances be revised to support transit, improve the pedestrian environment, and encourage infill developments. Impact fees and developer incentives were also suggested. Revisions to parking requirements were advised, including reducing the minimum parking requirements and imple- menting parking maximums. In terms of process, one agency suggested that transit agencies review all development appli- cations and that this review be mandated through ordinance. Another agency further recommended that any development requiring publicly funded infrastructure improvements or tax support be required to meet with the transit agency and con- sider transit improvements in the development. Education for all participants in the development process was an idea offered by several agencies. Transit planning staffs need training to better understand the development process. Education for local government planning staff, municipal officials, public works employees, and developers is needed to promote a better understanding of the value of transit and how transit can positively impact new building projects. One agency recommended the production of a handbook with details on how to incorporate bus transit into small- and large-scale developments, and explain why it is important to do so.

15 In cases where new developments require additional resources to provide new bus service, how should the funding of such service be addressed? In many cases, new developments require the extension of bus transit service. Agencies were asked how this expanded service should be funded. This was a difficult question for many transit agencies. Certainly, if there was an easy answer, most transit agencies would not face financial difficulty on an on-going basis. That said, the most frequently provided answer was for some type of impact fee (eight responses). In two cases, agencies suggested including developer incentives to offset the impact fee. Also recommended were special tax districts, such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts. Partnerships with developers or corporate land owners were suggested by 11 agencies. These partnerships could take the form of participation in transit benefit programs or service demonstrations for one to two years funded by the developer or land owner. One respondent’s idea was to have demon- stration funding based on a sliding scale dependent on the cost of the service and the revenue collected. The developer or land owner would pay the difference between the cost of providing the service and the revenue received. One respon- dent noted that these types of funding arrangements may raise equity concerns if partnerships are not uniformly provided. Do you have any additional comments or insights that would be helpful to this synthesis project? The last open-ended question solicited any additional com- ments or insights on this subject. Few agencies had any more to add to what they had already offered. However, three agencies suggested similar products that could be copied by transit agencies to suit their own particular situa- tions. One product was the provision of model codes for transit-supportive land use policies, design ordinances, and subdivision requirements. A second notion was the compi- lation and distribution of “best practice” guidebooks and other educational materials that could be easily customized by different transit agencies to suit their local conditions. The third recommended establishment of a database that contained the latest best practices for transit site and access planning.

Next: Chapter Four - Case Studies »
Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 67: Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning examines successful strategies that assist in the incorporation of bus transit service into land developments, as well as the challenges that transit agencies face when attempting to do so. The report also explores the state of the practice regarding the use and components of transit agency development guidelines.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!