Click for next page ( 14

The National Academies | 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 13
13 areas were left without transit service. One respondent noted Inadequate street networks, that a lack of market research to determine the probable ori- Cul-de-sacs and gated communities, gins and destinations of patrons within the new development Inadequate provision of transit facilities, and was a challenge. Determining what bus lines to reroute or Developer-operated shuttle competes with transit how to design a new route to serve the development is very service. difficult without adequate market research. Other challenges included inadequate facilities discov- SECTION F. IN YOUR OPINION . . . ered after construction was completed, such as missing or undersized turnarounds and missing landing pads at bus This section contained seven open-ended questions designed stops. In one case, the attraction of the newly implemented to obtain respondent opinions on a variety of issues surround- bus service resulted in a heavy concentration of pedestrians ing the integration of land developments and bus transit. These in an otherwise automobile-dominated landscape. This cre- questions are listed here with a summary of the answers. ated concern among local elected officials, because adequate facilities for pedestrians were not present. What types of facilities or amenities for bus service are generally lacking in new developments? Inadequate resources to add service is a common problem and service is sometimes restructured to find resources for the The most frequent response to this question was the need to new service. One transit agency noted that although there has provide basic pedestrian amenities. Sidewalks appear to be been growth and development in the area, there has been no a consistent and somewhat surprising oversight on the part corresponding growth in the amount of funding the agency of developers. Because all travelers, even automobile users, receives for operations. This is probably typical for many tran- begin and end their trips as pedestrians, the provision of sit agencies and points to a major problem for serving new sidewalks and walkways through parking lots would seem developments. Even in those cases where new service is war- to be an obvious need. Access to bus stops and unobstructed ranted, there may not be funds to support it. pathways through the surrounding neighborhoods is also inadequate in many developments. Other pedestrian ameni- Respondents were also asked to provide examples of devel- ties often omitted from development designs included opments that did not support transit service. For each example, pedestrian-level lighting and crosswalks. One respondent the respondents provided factors explaining why transit was not noted: "In the past, sidewalks were not included in many supported in the development. These factors were grouped into new developments. This is no longer the case, but we are "front-end issues" and "outcomes." Front-end issues are related still dealing with their absence in developments from 1020 to a lack of regional practices, planning processes, or poor tran- years ago." sit perceptions. The outcomes are generally the result of the front-end issues and prohibit the provision of adequate bus tran- After pedestrian amenities, the lack of bus stop amenities sit service in the development. Listed here are the front-end and adequate street networks was the next most frequent issues and outcomes identified by the survey respondents. response. Appropriate bus stop locations, shelters, benches, concrete landing pads, roadway width, and an interconnected Front-end issues roadway grid were identified as missing elements in new Lack of financial support for transit service, developments. Transit facilities that should have been incor- Lack of political support for transit service, porated into new developments included bus bays, turn- Historical development of land without sidewalks or arounds, information displays, and park and ride lots. connected streets, Owners and developers unfavorably disposed to Transit-supportive densities, a mixture of land use, appro- transit, priate building orientation, funding for new service, and a Review process fast-tracked, lack of understanding of the long-term value of transit were Refusal to allow transit agency to review plans, and all mentioned at least once by respondents as deficiencies in Transit viewed as unimportant to new development. planning for new developments. Outcomes Poor pedestrian connections, Too much free parking, What design aspects of new developments inhibit Poor site design with buildings set back from arteri- the effective provision of transit service? als and/or service, Low-density developments that cannot support tran- Survey respondents provided their opinions on the elements sit service, of new developments that inhibit the effective provision of Streetscaping that displaces bus stops, transit service. One respondent answered, "PARKING--free Poor office and shopping center roadway circulation and plenty of it! Large setbacks (no street frontage), cir- or weight-bearing ability, cuitous access." Building orientation was cited by nine

OCR for page 13
14 respondents. Large setbacks from the street with "oceans" of familiar and develop property in similar styles to what has parking between the street and the entrance were a common been built in the past. occurrence. Indirect paths for both pedestrians and the street network were also cited as design problems in new develop- Respondents provided additional explanations as to why ments. Circuitous street networks with cul-de-sacs and other it is difficult to integrate bus transit planning and land devel- traffic calming techniques slow transit to a crawl--that is, if opment planning. One respondent offered the following: provision of bus service is even possible. Likewise, travel "Buses are not viewed as permanent fixtures to a develop- times for pedestrians are greatly increased when walled or ment. As a result transit is often an afterthought." Another gated communities obstruct the direct pedestrian path. respondent noted that the many-to-many trip-making pattern Another impediment noted by a number of respondents was common in today's society is not conducive to taking bus low-density development, both residential and commercial. transit. At least one respondent noted that bus transit is not It is not economical to serve areas where the market is dis- considered a viable commuter option for the suburbs. persed over a large geographic area. In addition, walking dis- tances to the building entrances in low-density development A lack of resources on the part of transit operators are generally too long to make transit use attractive. 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 What factors contribute most to the successful new areas or to maintain new transit facilities. Two respon- integration of bus transit planning and land dents remarked that human resources are unavailable to par- development planning? ticipate in land development planning or to review new development proposals. Other factors included the absence This question asked respondents to identify factors that con- of political support and a lack of transit-supportive policies tribute most to the successful integration of bus transit plan- and regulations. 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 Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve to discuss the development's design and who were genuinely the integration of bus service planning and land interested in providing a quality transit environment. Strong development planning? support by local government was cited by seven respondents. Several respondents provided suggestions and ideas that they Other important factors included transit-supportive densities, believed would improve the integration of bus service plan- good pedestrian connections, a good street network, and ning and land development planning. Regulatory methods good communications between all stakeholders. An interest- were the most frequently cited. Agencies recommended that ing factor suggested by one agency was having the in-house zoning ordinances be revised to support transit, improve the ability to "sell" transit to developers, local governments and pedestrian environment, and encourage infill developments. communities. Unfortunately, transit planners do not neces- Impact fees and developer incentives were also suggested. sarily have the skill and/or the time to conduct this activity. Revisions to parking requirements were advised, including reducing the minimum parking requirements and imple- Why is it difficult to integrate bus transit planning menting parking maximums. In terms of process, one agency into land development planning? suggested that transit agencies review all development appli- cations and that this review be mandated through ordinance. Respondents were asked to expand on the challenges Another agency further recommended that any development associated with integrating bus transit planning and land requiring publicly funded infrastructure improvements or tax development planning. Most answers were related to the support be required to meet with the transit agency and con- perceptions of developers and the developer's operating con- sider transit improvements in the development. straints. Respondents reported that developers often had neg- ative perceptions regarding transit and are unable to conceive Education for all participants in the development process of any benefits associated with transit. Furthermore, transit was an idea offered by several agencies. Transit planning requires the removal of parking spaces that developers staffs need training to better understand the development believe are important to the economic viability of their proj- process. Education for local government planning staff, ects. One respondent noted that ". . . often developers view municipal officials, public works employees, and developers transit as unattractive and as a parking encroachment prob- is needed to promote a better understanding of the value of lem." In addition to these perceptions, developers have strict transit and how transit can positively impact new building schedules and budgets. The incorporation of transit into their projects. One agency recommended the production of a developments may expend additional resources, and transit handbook with details on how to incorporate bus transit into improvements are not viewed as adding to the development's small- and large-scale developments, and explain why it is profitability. Lastly, many developers prefer to do what is important to do so.

OCR for page 13
15 In cases where new developments require additional providing the service and the revenue received. One respon- resources to provide new bus service, how should dent noted that these types of funding arrangements may raise the funding of such service be addressed? equity concerns if partnerships are not uniformly provided. In many cases, new developments require the extension of bus transit service. Agencies were asked how this expanded Do you have any additional comments or insights service should be funded. This was a difficult question for that would be helpful to this synthesis project? many transit agencies. Certainly, if there was an easy answer, most transit agencies would not face financial difficulty on an The last open-ended question solicited any additional com- on-going basis. That said, the most frequently provided ments or insights on this subject. Few agencies had any answer was for some type of impact fee (eight responses). In more to add to what they had already offered. However, two cases, agencies suggested including developer incentives three agencies suggested similar products that could be to offset the impact fee. Also recommended were special tax copied by transit agencies to suit their own particular situa- districts, such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts. tions. One product was the provision of model codes for Partnerships with developers or corporate land owners were transit-supportive land use policies, design ordinances, and suggested by 11 agencies. These partnerships could take the subdivision requirements. A second notion was the compi- form of participation in transit benefit programs or service lation and distribution of "best practice" guidebooks and demonstrations for one to two years funded by the developer other educational materials that could be easily customized or land owner. One respondent's idea was to have demon- by different transit agencies to suit their local conditions. stration funding based on a sliding scale dependent on the The third recommended establishment of a database that cost of the service and the revenue collected. The developer contained the latest best practices for transit site and access or land owner would pay the difference between the cost of planning.