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.
27 There are many challenges to integrating bus service with land developments. Among these, the perception of transit in general and of bus transit in particular, is a significant barrier to overcome. Bus transit does not have a positive image in many areas. To overcome poor perceptions when meeting with stakeholders, transit staff must present pertinent knowl- edge that is clear, concise, and to the point. A good presenta- tion by staff can go a long way toward making stakeholders comfortable and more open to transit considerations. This chapter will review the challenges of integrating bus transit and land developments in three areas: Institutional Barriers, Resource and Financial Challenges, and Stake- holder Challenges. INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS Institutional barriers that prevent the integration of bus tran- sit service into land developments include internal issues within the transit agency and the division that typically exists between the transit agency and local government. A significant institutional barrier can be the transit agencyâs policymaking board. Many transit boards do not view land use planning as their role, and involvement in con- tentious land use decisions is not desired. Board members and even top management at transit agencies may not understand the relationship that exists between land use and transit. It may be beneficial to update transit agency decision makers on the transit and land use connection to generate internal sup- port for appropriate land uses. Without this education, it could be challenging to expend resources to advocate for good land use design. Participation by staff in the land development process will be limited, and without internal high-level sup- port, staff cannot effectively participate. Another institutional barrier is the normal division of responsibilities between transit agencies and the local govern- ments. The transit agency is typically responsible for service provision and service planning, whereas land use policy and planning is the responsibility of local government. Effective communication networks and coordination processes between the two agencies are required if transit is to be consistently inte- grated into land developments. However, establishing good communication networks and coordination processes is time consuming. Staffs from both agencies are often squeezed by the pressure from other vital activities and staff turnover can bring progress to a halt. Even with suitable networks in place, transit is often inadvertently omitted from the planning arena. In addition to the challenge of divided responsibilities, local governments may have priorities and goals that differ from those of the transit agency. At times, the goals of the two agen- cies may be in direct conflict with one another. There may be competition for financial resources. As an example, TIF funds that could be used to add amenities at bus stops may go instead toward roadway improvements desired by the city. This diver- gence of goals points to the need for land use and transporta- tion decisions to be made concurrently. Decisions on these issues should not be made independent of each other. Based on survey results, the most common method of ensuring con- current decisions on land use and transportation is through early involvement in the planning process. Areas that do not have a strong planning process are at a great disadvantage. The plans must be enforceable, either through regulation or through strong commitments by local leadership. RESOURCE AND FINANCIAL CHALLENGES The greatest financial challenge to integrating bus service into land developments is associated with the resources available at the transit agency. Resources in terms of staff time and in terms of the operating costs associated with bus route changes are in short supply at most transit agencies. Staff resources are dedicated to planning activities associated with the direct provision of service. Transit planners may not have the time to become involved in land use issues. If a developer or a building owner does not agree initially to the transit plannerâs recommendation, it is likely that the transit planner will let the matter drop and move on to the next pressing task. In many areas the planner may have little recourse, unless there are policies and institutional practices in place that support transit in these efforts. Most transit agencies cannot force a developer to act and convincing them takes time. Time is a resource that neither the transit planner nor the developer has in great supply. In addition to the lack of staff resources, there is a limited amount of resources available to extend or improve service levels. One transit system noted that although there has been growth and development in the area, there has been no corre- sponding growth in the amount of funding the agency receives CHAPTER FIVE CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATING BUS TRANSIT SERVICE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
for operations. This is probably typical for many transit agen- cies and points to a major problem for serving new develop- ments. Even in those cases where new service is warranted, there may not be funds to support it. This situation makes it difficult to negotiate with developers for facilities that are needed to accommodate transit at the site, but where there is no guarantee that service will be available. Developers are not likely to build a transit element in their development unless the transit agency agrees to serve the development. A challenge for large TOD projects is that some lenders are reluctant to finance new types of projects (Cervero and Seskin 1995). Lenders prefer to back a sure thing; proven models that have a history of generating sufficient revenue to make a profit. TOD projects, especially in the suburbs, are not typical devel- opment projects and therefore carry greater risk. Lenders are risk-averse and unless they have prior experience with similar developments, they are not likely to finance the project. Lenders are also predisposed to developments providing up to two parking spaces per unit, in large part because current mar- ket studies indicate that this is the preferred level. Lenders who rely on those studies will not finance developments that incor- porate fewer spaces per unit. Developing Around Transit: Strategies and Solutions That Work (Dunphy et al. 2004), notes that the number of lenders that have experience with TOD proj- ects is increasing. However, projects are more likely to obtain financing if some local financial support is provided. This fund- ing support communicates to the lender that transit has value to the community and that the community perceives benefits asso- ciated with the incorporation of transit into the development. STAKEHOLDER CHALLENGES Transit agencies have a vested interest in expanding the mar- ket for transit, and the integration of transit with new devel- opments is an opportunity to do that. Other stakeholders, such as developers, the community, or even the local munic- ipality, may not have the same interests. Except in urbanized central cities, transit represents a very small percentage of travel within the United States. It is therefore not surprising that most developers do not consider transit when designing their developments. Many developers are unfamiliar with transit and do not understand transitâs potential benefit; therefore, the incorporation of transit early in the development process is very difficult. Once transit appears on the âradar screen,â it still faces an uphill battle. In new developments transit interests are in com- petition with a host of other interests. During the develop- mentâs feasibility and design phases, transit competes for scarce resources with a variety of other land uses. For transit to be considered in the competition it must first become known to the developer either through direct contact or as part of a required planning process. Then transit must make the case that space within the development and the expense associated with building a transit facility is appropriate and cost-effective. 28 Developers will often come to the table with an off-the-shelf design. Large retail chains prefer a standard building and site design that they propose for all new sites. This has advantages for the retailer and is cheaper than designing each development from scratch. This approach, however, is not transit-friendly because it typically is designed for access by automobile only and does not include consideration of alternative travel modes. Most developments, whether they are commercial, indus- trial, or residential, are planned without considering transit as an access mode. After designing the first development as autocentric, subsequent developments are proposed in the same mold. This is a difficult habit to break, and developers must be convinced to break the cycle. It is up to local com- munities to negotiate for a site design that is more in line with their goals. This is happening in some communities, espe- cially for big box developments that have begun to move into urban environments from the traditional suburban areas. For example, in New York, Home Depot has constructed a three-story store in Manhattan and Target a two-story store in Brooklyn. The proposed Midtown Square development in Charlotte, North Carolina, will feature a Target store on top of a Home Depot Expo. It is gratifying that some areas have had success in breaking the big-box mold; however, more needs to be done, because autocentric developments are still the mainstream designs. The normal developer process begins some time before the public sector is aware that a new development is being considered. Given the standard development process, it is usually too late for collaboration with transit agencies (Cervero et al. 2002). Once major components of the devel- opment are planned, it may be too difficult and costly to accommodate transit within the site. It is also difficult to mesh the varying time lines between the local government, developer, and transit agency. For the developer, acquiring approvals from local governments and transit agencies can take an inordinate amount of time and money. This may dis- suade many developers from formulating developments that require a lengthy approval process. Communities can often be an obstacle to new develop- ments for a variety of reasons. Communities have opposed transit expansions because of a poor perception of transit and its customers. A mixed-use development proposal with good potential for increasing transit ridership may be opposed by the surrounding community for a variety of reasons. The community may fear increased traffic congestion or insuffi- cient municipal resources to support the increased popula- tion. In lower-income neighborhoods the community may be fearful of property values rising too high and eventually pushing them out of the neighborhood. In higher-income neighborhoods the community may expect property values to fall, perhaps owing to the provision of more bus service to the area. Whatever the reason, experience has shown that early public involvement and education is key to a smoother development process.
