Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning (2006)

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.

49 (The number of responses is shown in parentheses) A. Transit Agency Characteristics 1. In the drop-down list below, please indicate how many buses your agency operates. (2)  <50 (6)  50–100 (13)  100–500 (11)  >500 2. What transit modes does your agency operate? Please check all that apply. (32)  Bus (7)  LRT (6)  Heavy rail (2)  Commuter rail (27)  Demand-responsive/paratransit (2)  Ferry (5)  Other (Please specify): Van–carpools, trolley, Trailpath, AGT 3. Please describe your agency’s service area in terms of the number and size of the municipalities or governmental areas served. B. Stakeholders and Communications 1. Typically, how does your organization first become aware of future new developments? (17)  News media (18)  Staff observations (16)  Call from developer (8)  Public inquiries (27)  Formal communication from local government (21)  Informal communication from local government (6)  Other (Please describe): Attendance at meetings, notification from state or regional planning agencies 2. In your area what agency has the primary responsibility for the physical design of public elements within new develop- ments (i.e., street width, sidewalks, parking availability, etc.)? (15) City (2) County (1) No answer (8) City or county (2) Regional planning agency (3) Local government (1) County/state 3. Overall, how well does this agency support transit when reviewing plans for new developments? (8)  Always considers transit (9)  Usually considers transit (12)  Sometimes considers transit (3)  Rarely considers transit 4. Please describe how this agency communicates with you to discuss new developments and cite whether these are formal or informal communications. (Note that formal communications involve a pre-organized, standard process, whereas infor- mal communications rely on individual and personal networks.) (16) Formal communications (4) Interagency cooperation (9) Informal communications (2) Rare informal communication (4) Depends on local government (1) Self-informed Contact name Title Name of agency Phone number E-mail address APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire

5. The following table lists additional stakeholders that may be involved in planning for new developments. Please indicate how your agency communicates with each stakeholder regarding new development projects. (Note that formal communications involve a pre-organized, standard process, whereas informal communications rely on individual and personal networks.) * Economic development organizations, regional planning agencies, state governments. C. Transit Agency Development Guidelines 1. Does your agency (or other stakeholders) have a published set of guidelines to assist developers who are designing new developments? (9)  Yes (23)  No (skip to Section D “Transit Supportive Strategies”) If a set of design guidelines is available, please transmit a copy to Mary Kay Christopher, MKC Associates, 3112 Maple Avenue, Berwyn, IL 60402. Or, if an electronic version is available, e-mail to marykay@mkcassociates.com. 2. What is the purpose of the guidelines? • Aid developers in the provision of transit to their development. • Bus stop guidelines provide construction standards for bus facilities. • Inform anyone involved in suburban development how to accommodate pedestrian and transit into their new or rede- veloped project. • Primarily bus stop/bench installation. • Assist developers by making it easy to consider transit needs through published guidelines. The guidelines also help pro- mote transit in developing areas and provide the needed design standards to incorporate in any development to have tran- sit and pedestrian-friendly developments. • Make developers, businesses, institutions, and public agencies aware of opportunities that exist to capitalize on the large market of transit riders in the service area. • Make developers and municipalities aware of transit patron requirements. • Provide specific design guidance to developers and local jurisdictions on transit operating and facility requirements. 3. In what formats are the guidelines available? (8)  Printed document (0)  Video (1)  PowerPoint presentation (4)  Other (Please identify): Online 4. How are developers (or others) encouraged to use the guidelines? (2) Required for permit process (2) Local government encouragement (2) Through personal networks (2) No answer (2) Formal planning or environmental review 5. What development characteristics are addressed in the guidelines? Please check all that apply. (5)  Site planning (5)  Land use (3)  Density (5)  Streets (5)  Sidewalks (4)  Open space (9)  Bus stops (4)  Building design (4)  Parking (5)  Pedestrian amenities (5)  Bicycle amenities (5)  Security (5)  Landscaping (6)  ADA elements (5)  Directness of pedestrian path (3)  Other (Please specify): Roadway design, signalization, bus pull-out bays, shelter design Stakeholder Formal Process Informal Process No Process Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) (15) (8) (13) Developer (16) (20) (5) Local government (26) (20) (2) Community organization (7) (19) (7) Other (please identify)* (3) (5) Other (please identify) Other (please identify) 50

51 6. What technical specifications are provided in the guidelines? Please check all that apply. (9)  Bus dimensions (7)  Bus stop spacing (8)  Bus stop paving (9)  Bus stop length (7)  Bus stop placement (8)  Bus shelter dimensions (7)  Bus turnaround requirements (7)  Bus shelter design (8)  Turning radii (5)  Roadway width (4)  Bicycle storage (4)  Roadway paving (4)  Sidewalk width (3)  Parking spaces/lots (9)  ADA requirements (3)  Other (Please specify): Bus–rail transit, walking distance, templates 7. Are there elements that you or other stakeholders would like to add to your guidelines to enhance their usefulness? Please describe. (2) Pedestrian connections/amenities (1) Bus stop standards (2) Shelter types/dimensions (1) Sidewalk dimensions (1) Bus turnaround requirements (1) Transit alternatives for different land uses 8. Does your agency have any other guidelines, regulatory authority, or published policies that support the integration of bus transit service with new development projects? If so, please describe. • Pedestrian technical guidelines • Policy principles on service design • Transit guidelines for developing communities • Transit development plan/program • Transportation master plan • Joint development policy/plan • Bicycle technical guidelines • Transit improvements and land use system statements • Customer amenities design manual D. Transit Supportive Strategies 1. Does your area have regional or local policies in place that provide positive support for integrating transit into new devel- opments? Please check all that apply and provide a brief description of each. (19)  Zoning (8)  Tax incentives (14)  Parking restrictions/fees (5)  Land incentives (10)  Controlled growth (6)  Funding incentives (12)  Development regulations (20)  Design standards (20)  Written policies in adopted plans (4)  Others (please identify and describe): Community redevelopment areas, transit fare subsidy for highway construction 2. Did your agency take a proactive role in the development of any of the policies above? (25)  Yes (7)  No 3. Please list the policies that your agency advocated. (6) Policies in adopted plans (3) Parking (6) Zoning (1) Development regulations (4) Design standards (1) Transit fare subsidy 4. Is your agency an active participant in preparing the long-range land use plan for your region? (21)  Yes (11)  No 5. Aside from the long-range land use plan, is there another planning forum to discuss land development plans? (23)  Yes (7)  No (2)  Do not know

6. If the answer to Question 5 was yes, please describe this forum. • County is conducting a visioning process and action plan that we are sponsors with. • MPO uses a portion of its planning funds to foster local planning efforts and requires program participants to attend quarterly information sharing sessions. • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. • Local jurisdictions’ plan area projects; pre-application conferences. • MPO process. • Land Development Technical Committee every 2 weeks for development review. • Regional Planning Council and Land Use Subcommittee (MPO). • On receipt of Planned Development applications. • Invited on a case-by-case basis by the planning commission to discuss projects and plans with some influence on transit demand. Also invited to discuss transit plans by the county, city, and suburban municipalities. • All new development requires the approval of our Planning Board. Approval requires several meetings that incorporate public input and often require several development revisions. • The city has a preconference development process where a developer can request a meeting with city departments and transit to discuss what facilities the developer will need to address. • Small area plans, neighborhood plans, etc., sponsored by each local jurisdiction’s planning office. • The regional transportation plans use land use as one of its base elements. • Each city has a land development process that includes public review and comment. • Neighborhood development plans reviewed and approved by Plan Commission. • Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan, Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) amendments. • Master plans and sub-area plans, both of which usually have extensive provisions for input from county government and from the community at large. Development Review Committee for specific developments, meetings of the Planning Board. 7. Has your agency developed communication methods to convince developers (or others) that bus transit adds value to new developments? (14)  Yes (18)  No 8. Please describe the methods used. (3) Personal networks (1) Distribution of guidelines (3) Written reports (1) Transit-oriented development program (3) Outreach through meetings/planning activities 9. Please describe why the methods have been either successful or unsuccessful. • In most cases the planning commissions and city councils have supported inclusion of walkways to connect to bus stops. • Depends on the municipality and the developer. • Developers are motivated by the bottom line and will do anything to avoid incurring any extra costs. • If we can convince the developer of the importance, they tend to begin including us in all their developments. The “sell” is difficult, but the buy-in once the sell is successful tends to be long-term. • Successful report, but seldom used. • Methods were successful, because empirical data were provided to support the changes, and regional consensus was gained before moving forward. • Sometimes too late, as we are notified late in the development planning process; we depend on timely notification by city staff. • As a region we are headed in the right direction and continue to build partnerships with local communities. • Area real estate and job market is soft. • In some cases the efforts have been very successful. Conditions imposed by local jurisdictions as part of the project approval process have been instrumental in instances where transit facilities have been incorporated into new construction. • I believe over time we will be able to add more staff to help us undertake more of these types of activities in a more proactive fashion. 52

E. Experience in Integrating Bus Service in New Developments 1. In the past five years what types of development has your area experienced? Please check all that apply. (24)  Reuse of vacant industrial land (brownfields) along existing transit routes (29)  New or more intense use of existing developed land along transit routes (27)  Other infill along transit routes (30)  Development of previously undeveloped land (greenfields) (19)  Reuse of vacant industrial land (brownfields) where no transit existed (24)  New or more intense use of existing developed land where no transit existed (22)  Other infill where no transit existed (1)  None (skip to Section F “In Your Opinion”) 2. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you describe your agency’s involvement in the land development process in your service area? (Where 1 equals no involvement and 5 represents a full partner in the process.) (1)  (8)  (14)  (7)  (1)  1 2 3 4 5 3. In the drop-down list below, please choose the statement that best conveys how well bus transit service has been coordinated with new developments. (5)  All developments are coordinated (8)  Most are coordinated (2)  About half are coordinated (16)  Some are coordinated (1)  None are coordinated 4. In the table below, please list up to three examples of new developments that successfully supported bus transit services. For each example cite the primary factors that led to the project’s success. If none, please leave blank and skip to Question 6. None = 2 No answer = 3 27 respondents reported at least one successful project 5. In your opinion, which of the three projects identified above is the most successful overall? Please write the project name here. Please answer Questions 6–13 only for the project identified in Question 5. 6. Was your organization involved in the planning and design decisions affecting the new development? (23)  Yes (4)  No 7. How early in the planning and design process was your agency involved? (15)  At the very beginning (7)  After it started, but still early in the process (1)  About half way through (2)  Late in the process (2)  At the end (0)  Never No. Project Name Factors for success 1 –——————————————————————— 2 –——————————————————————— 3 –——————————————————————— 53

8. Has your agency implemented new (or realigned) bus transit service to serve the new development? (17)  Yes (10)  No (skip to Question 13) 9. What was the reason(s) for implementing the service? (11)  Expected density warranted service (5)  Request from elected official (17)  Opportunity to serve traffic generator (3)  Request from community (10)  Other (please describe): Partnership, new facility, developer request, service restructure, policy decision, state provided funding 10. Please identify any obstacles or challenges you encountered when implementing the service (e.g., inadequate pedestrian access, lack of resources, inadequate facility design, etc.). (3) Lack of resources (2) Need to restructure service to obtain resources (2) Inadequate transit facilities (1) Lack of market research (1) Increased travel time for through-routing customers (1) Coordination with private services (1) Travel through large parking lots (1) None 11. Has the new bus service been successful? (10)  Yes (0)  No (3) No answer (1) Too soon to tell (1) Mixed results (1) Service not implemented 12. Please specify the measures used to determine the success or failure of the new service. (9) Ridership (5) No answer (5) Productivity (1) None 13. If you have not provided new bus service to the development, please explain why. (8) Existing service already in place (1) Project not completed (1) No room in terminal 14. In the table below, please list up to three examples of new development projects that do not support bus transit service and describe the primary factors that explain why transit is not supported. None = 2 No answer = 6 24 respondents reported at least one unsuccessful project F. In Your Opinion . . . 1. What types of facilities or amenities for bus service are generally lacking in new developments? • Adequate sidewalk systems and design of street networks to support walking and transit. Densities are often too low and too much single-use land use. • Pedestrian accommodations, passenger waiting facilities, pedestrian level lighting, too much free parking (no incentive to do anything but drive alone). No. Project Name Factors—Why Transit Is Not Supported 1 –——————————————————————— 2 –——————————————————————— 3 –——————————————————————— 54

55 • Big box stores. • Sidewalk connections, building orientation. • Sidewalks. • Roadway width, separation of transit vehicle travel path from parking, appropriate passenger waiting areas. • Pedestrian connections to transit stops. New housing developments are “walled” from main streets that prevent conve- nient access to transit stops. • Shelters, pedestrian crossings, restrooms dependent on transit frequencies. • Pedestrian connections through parking lots. • Street design inadequate for bus traffic, lack of sidewalks, lack of transit stops, auto-oriented design. • Sidewalks, shelters. • Site design. Matching the right design to the adjacent transit service to maximize convenience. • Pedestrian—sidewalks, convenient sites for bus stops. • Arterial street grids; provisions for bus turnaround (terminal) facilities. • 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. • Passenger boarding amenities such as shelters and benches at properly placed boarding locations are often overlooked. • Good pedestrian connections between the development and transit stops. • Funds to support local circulators to connect residents to our main line trunk service; or funds to support development of regional park and rides so we can limit main trunk line service to key stops or stations, large activity nodes. • Information display. • Parking as well as suitable engineering/design for ingress/egress into the developments themselves. Quite often the buses are limited to use of existing street right-of-way for alighting and departing passengers. Such interface locations may not be appealing to new bus patronage. • Park and ride, passenger shelter, access paths. • Access, bus bays, shelters. • Proper street design; right-of-way for facilities; low-density, single-use areas; opposition (or lack of vision)—a lack of understanding of the long-term value of integrating transit from elected officials and the community. • Passenger amenities—sidewalks, concrete boarding pads, benches/shelters. • Connected road grid, bus stops/bus shelters, nonmotorized facilities and amenities. • Sidewalks—especially with regard to connections with surrounding neighborhoods. • Pedestrian friendly design—adequate sidewalks and good pedestrian connectivity. • Weather-protected, comfortable, attractively designed waiting areas integrated into the design of the development. We try to add these with shelters, but they often do not work as well as accommodations would if they were incorporated into the design from the outset. • Site plans that allow bus service or easy pedestrian access to off-site bus service and bus shelters. 2. What design aspects of new developments inhibit the effective provision of transit service? • Low densities and auto-oriented transportation system. • Parking—free and plenty of it! Large setbacks (no street frontage), circuitous access. • Large parking area between street and building. • Lack of direct and safe pedestrian access between bus stop location, destinations within the site, and the adjacent properties. • Gated communities, cul de sacs, incomplete street grid, overly wide and fast streets, driveway locations, and large blocks. • Parking and big setbacks. • Access limitations as a result of decorative paving, landscaping, or entry design. • Low densities; unlimited parking. • For commercial developments, parking that fronts the street and does not provide a safe pedestrian path to the building. Meandering sidewalks and streets can also prohibit the effectiveness of transit service. Landscaping between the side- walk and curb make it difficult for a person in a wheelchair to board and exit from a bus. • Lack of signalization, gated communities, and speed devices. • Setback of development and low density (campus setting). • Street pattern does not have through streets. • Building access/placement is sometimes separated from bus access by parking or non-transit user type development. • Road designs that preclude or are non-conducive to transit buses, building faces far removed from existing bus lines, developments nowhere near existing major travel corridors and bus lines.

• Cul-de-sac street patterns; walled city pattern of fences, or walls surrounding residential developments have the effect of increasing walking distances for pedestrians; lack of continuous sidewalk networks inside residential developments and along some arterials; low-rise campus-type commercial development that increases pedestrian walking distances to the nearest arterials where transit may operate; abundant free parking combined with relatively inexpensive gasoline costs in real terms, recent increases notwithstanding. • Distance of development from street, particularly for commercial developments. This requires riders to walk a long dis- tance between bus stop and building entrance. • Narrow circuitous streets. • Building orientation and pedestrian connections. • Large lots for luxury homes. • Conflict between uses for prime space. For example, the best place for bus bays at a bus/rail station is near the rail sta- tion entrance. This is also the best place for retail space and the entrances to office buildings and apartment houses. Except in the most urban areas, developers generally see bus stops as uses that detract from the value of their buildings. • Street design and internal geometry; ability to use planned parking for commuter/joint use. • Cul-de-sac-type developments. • Limitations on off-site improvements; for example, a bus stop on one side of street (where development is) but not the other. • Lack of sidewalks; lack of obvious pedestrian amenities leading riders to and from sites. • Traffic calming devices and poorly interconnected street grids. • Gated communities. • Location—developers rarely consider access to transit. • Lack of density to support transit, pedestrian connectivity, street standards that help to create barriers for the pedestrian (wide lanes, lack of consideration for the pedestrian or transit, etc.). • Prioritizing automobile access over bus access, ample parking, employer-paid or free parking. 3. What factors contribute most to the successful integration of bus transit planning and land development planning? • City provides incentives for higher density and in-fill development. • Local policy and support at the Planning Board level. • Consideration of passengers; easy access for the transit vehicle. • Early participation in the process, reasonable requests for transit accommodations, and support from the municipality reviewing and approving the plan. • State/regional policies and standards. Oregon’s Transportation Planning rule required local zoning codes to have devel- opment standards for transit streets. Local permitting staff must be knowledgeable about transit needs. • Developers who are actually interested in transit and in developing sites where transit exists. • Open discussion early on to understand what all parties hope to achieve with the new development. • Densities. • Factors that contribute to successful integration of transit and land planning include local support from elected officials and staff members as well as private developers. • Local government support. • Effective and direct communication between transit agency and private developer; ability of transit agency to sell the service to developers. • Early coordination; political support for transit; enlightened developers; cooperation and support from city, county, and state entities that dictate street design and layout; effective transit agency outreach and education. • Involvement in process, easy bus access, pedestrian paths. • High-density development, good pedestrian access, good passenger waiting facilities/bus stop amenities. • When developers, community officials, transportation planners, and road engineers are all sincerely interested in maxi- mizing the number of access modes to specific projects. • Higher density organized along major arterials, short walking distances, a street grid, availability of continuous sidewalk networks, and mixture of land uses rather than segregation of land uses. • The understanding and cooperation of cities and townships in the desirability of providing for transit and pedestrians. This is now very good throughout our area. A tight labor market greatly increases the interest of developers in providing for transit. • High-density development with limited/paid parking facilities. • Willingness of developer and planners to coordinate with transit agencies early on and ability of local planners to require contributions for transit; willingness/ability of transit agency to say “no” and to require exactions, fees. • Including bus planners in the charrettes, task forces, etc., used to develop plans for transit station areas. • Being involved early in the process; a developer who can envision public transit, especially bus service, as an attractive, alternative transportation option and a marketing advantage to their proposed development; and of course being a partner 56

57 in the development review and zoning process, which otherwise provides an ability to at least have the conversation with the developer regarding transit amenities. • Early participation by our agency. • Local government support. • Consideration of transit access/amenities early in the design process along with a formal local process for inclusion of transit planning in new developments. • Consideration of and planning for transit early in the planning and design process. • Comprehensive street grid permitting multiple routing options upon introduction of transit service. • Density, road capacity, accessibility, transfer areas (park and ride, transit hubs). • A cooperative community and site designers that understand the benefits and needs of transit. • Early consideration of transit-supportive uses/design within the development. • Commitment/motivation on the part of land development planning agency; education of development community on benefits of bus transit. • Early coordination with the developer and developer interest in transit service. 4. Why is it difficult to integrate bus transit planning into land development planning? • Lack of policies and design requirements. Too much parking required and orientation toward single-occupancy vehicle. • Bus not sexy like rail, used by “others,” not perceived as permanent like rail. • Political will. Most developers do not appreciate the benefit of good transit access. • Developers resist because it almost always increases initial cost to develop the site. • Perceived conflict between cars, pedestrians, and transit. Lack of regulatory authority. Lack of resources to review and track new development. • Most new developments happen outside of the transit agency’s service area. Transit agencies (unlike utilities) have no way of adequately recouping the cost to extend service to far areas. Infill is ultimately easier to serve. • In the suburbs, transit is not seen as a viable commuting option. • Housing preference by the public; travel patterns of the single-occupancy vehicle. • First, bus routes can change, which creates the belief that incorporating transit amenities can be a poor investment. Main- tenance of the amenities such as shelters and trash is another issue, since it is the responsibility of local agencies to clean and maintain shelters. • Cost of transit and convincing developers of the benefits unique to their development. • Developers do not envision transit components as profitable. • In this area, lack of knowledge and appreciation for the role transit can play, negative perception of transit customers, banking industry pressure to stick with what works and not try anything new or unconventional, developer tendency to go with what they have always done, inertia, etc. • Planning is still auto-oriented, not a priority with local governments. • Difficulty depends on where a project is located—urban core versus outer-ring suburb, and depends on city policy and developer cooperation. • Developer schedules, limited funding to carefully design for transit, limited number of transit planning staff; non- supportive zoning. • Authority and funding are fragmented. Basically, local jurisdictions (incorporated cities) control most urban land use. There is no connection between incremental population and employment growth and the budget resources to support expansion of transit service and facilities. It is hard for transit to compete when the automobile mode receives so many direct and indirect subsidies. • In this area, the absence of any regional planning makes it very difficult. • Buses are not viewed as “permanent” fixtures to a development. As a result, transit is often an afterthought. • Lack of understanding and vision by the politicians. • Often it is way too late to incorporate design changes and planners do not have “teeth.” They need to require exactions; ability of transit agency to say “no” and to require exactions, fees. • Designing streets or plazas to accommodate bus stops or bus bays presents difficulties for architects and engineers in preparing land use plans. • Often the site plan will require adjustment in terms of engineering and in terms of depth of paving/types of paving mate- rials and in geometry to allow for appropriate access (which translates into capital costs); often developers view transit as unattractive and as a parking encroachment problem. • Buses are seen as a lesser choice of transport versus the automobile. • Added expense to developer that is passed on to public. • There is no formal process and no formal requirements.

• It is often an afterthought and is added retroactively—and then most often relegated to the periphery of developments or to locations where it will not [cannot] well serve the development; transit often has an unwarranted negative public perception; the current many-to-many trip-making pattern for our county is not conducive to efficiently linking transit trips—origins and destinations are so spread out that when new development comes into these locations transit is often not capable of serving the projects efficiently. • Operating funding for future service expansions is not identified at the time of land development, and placing passenger amenities without knowing future routing corridors is impossible. • Difficulties related to transit hubs, owing to environmental impacts. • We often encounter developers and architects who are unwilling to incorporate the needs of transit. Developers and most communities are still very “auto-centric.” • Perception of buses as a secondary form of transportation; rail is much more widely accepted by the general public. • Developer opposition based in part on image of bus service/riders; less certainty about long-term commitment to bus routes versus fixed rail. • Often the developer is not interested in facilitating transit service, but the eventual businesses or residents who occupy the site are interested. When they become involved it is sometimes too late because the physical plan cannot be changed. 5. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve the integration of bus service planning and land development planning? • Revise city ordinances to require transit supportive development to the same level that single-occupancy vehicle systems are required. • Education of planning staffs, hiring of planning staffs!, modernizing zoning regulations particularly around parking and pedestrian accommodation. • Code provisions supportive of transit; incentives to developers. • More training about transit for local planning, zoning, and transportation (roads) officials. Development standards. • Our ongoing outreach through our Business Development office is helping to make private sector aware of the benefits that can be realized through the incorporation of transit. • More incentives for infill development; impact fees to support transit in low-density areas. • Improving the connectivity between the public sidewalk and development is critical since every transit trip begins and ends as a pedestrian trip. Cooperative efforts between the cities and the transit agency in trying to understand what types of land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.) can benefit from different types of transit services (e.g., regional express, local circulator, etc.) is also a way to integrate land development and transit planning. • Review applications and require as part of ordinances. • Include bus service physical needs in zoning ordinances. • Beef up development standards, change parking requirements to reduce minimums and implement maximums, educate key stakeholders, provide incentives for reducing automobile trips, praise and publicly celebrate transit-oriented devel- opment projects, etc. • Convincing local municipalities of the value of transit. • Continue corridor and nodal development concentration and coordination with transit and regional planning agencies. • As a requirement of receiving any publicly funded infrastructure improvements or taxpayer funding, public officials, designers, and developers sponsoring such projects must demonstrate in advance of receiving same that transit bus ser- vice was duly considered by the plans and incorporated where feasible. Such consideration would include demonstrat- ing that public transit provider staff was consulted. • Increasing the amount of budget resources to deliver new service, coupled with demand management programs such as pass subsidy and parking management programs. • Incorporate even the finest details into a long-term master plan so developers can become accustomed to consistent requirements. • Local planning agencies must be given “teeth”; need to work on education of elected officials on transportation and land use connection and how it impacts even the short term! They also have to make it a priority to require their staff to change their development code accordingly. • Involve bus planners early and often in the land use planning process. • A handbook or tool kit for local government on why and how to incorporate bus improvements into small- and large- scale developments would help. Current national focus is on high-density, transit-oriented development connected to rail stations. Need something for the less dense suburban environment. • Locations of new, large developments in fringe areas are eligible to provide transit facilities and/or amenities as required. • States could mandate that developments of a certain size require that transit agencies be included in the planning process from the beginning. 58

59 • Require developer to meet with transit agency early in the process, prior to initial concept design, to ensure incorpora- tion of transit-friendly features. Prioritize bus access over automobile access and ample parking. • Zoning could require consultation by developers with the transit agency, along with some degree of compliance with transit recommendations. 6. In cases where new developments require additional resources to provide new bus service, how should the funding of such service be addressed? • Our funding system includes property taxes. An unlimited access service based on the municipalities subsidizing the ser- vice in a similar way to the current subsidization of automobile travel by investing in building and maintaining roadways. • By developer mitigation fees, corporate participation in transit benefit programs, by demonstration funds for trial periods. • Developers should be given incentives to offset the cost of transit provision. • Our transit investment plan designates priorities for investment in service. Most service is paid for by a payroll tax. There have been a couple instances where service is provided or continued because large employers agree to provide transit passes to all employees or agree to pay directly for particular service, such as an express route. • Involve the employer in a funding agreement that is mutually beneficial. • Impact fees. • Any form of financing that can provide additional funds for improving operation should be explored. This can include voter-approved bonds, development fees, and special taxes. • From the developers through impact fees. • Development incentives, Tax Increment Financing subsidies (where applicable). • Partnership efforts are paramount because no increase of service is going to pay for itself. Consider using a sliding scale program where subsidy is tied to ridership and if the service is successful the subsidy declines. • Public–private partnerships. • One avenue is Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ); another is Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC). It is valu- able to test new markets on a demonstration basis. However, if developments occur on existing transit routes (as we would hope they would), frequency and span would be demand driven. • I have no idea. Let the developers show some creativity. • It is difficult to condition new development on provision of new bus service, since the operating cost of new service is an ongoing one, whereas facility costs are one-time costs (at least for the life of the facility). Short of concentrating author- ity for overall land use and transportation funding decisions in one body, there is no good solution to the present discontinuities. One potential direction might involve toll pricing of key highway facilities gauged to level and time of congestion, and using the resulting revenues to improve transit service. • Region does not permit impact fees. The local jurisdiction is required to fund local share of the cost of service. • Setting up a General Improvement District can be effective for large commercial developments, whereas a general sales tax increase might be more appropriate for residential developments. • Funds should be exacted by and provided to local municipalities or counties for them to pay for transit improvements as they desire. • Traffic management districts and Tax Increment Financing. • Can be a mixed bag. New service has to be judged on its cost-effectiveness overall. Additionally, to the degree that the new development generates sales tax, and that tax is available county-wide or city-wide (or already legally obligated) for public transit, the developer will typically make the case that the sales tax should be used for public transit as opposed to any kind of special assessment. • Demonstration project funding would be nice. • Good question—I’d like an answer, too. • It should be included in the regular transit operating budget. • I’m not sure if there is a “best” way of funding service in this type of situation, but here are a few general thoughts: through transit benefits or other assessment districts, development fees, and possibly through association fees (depend- ing on the type of development). • Impact fees, direct operating subsidy from developer for minimal peak-hour services. • Funding new service continues to be a problem. Often, new developments are not served unless they are built on an exist- ing bus line or if a development is large enough to restructure the bus route. • Resources can be provided by the developer, city, or other agency in support of creating transit-oriented development. • Developer contributions, fees; developer provision of shuttle services, grants, etc., are options for funding (with service planned in concert with the transit agency). However, provision of this type of special funding can create equity issues— that is, how do you justify providing service to one new development (just because they have special funding) when many others also warrant new service, but may not have access to such funding. Sometimes access to funding may be

based on factors unrelated to documented transit needs (e.g., political factors). There are also risks that these dedicated funding sources may not continue indefinitely, and then the question becomes whether to continue the service with other funding sources and where this fits within the county’s service priorities. • If serving new development requires significant route extension, the development should fund the service. 7. Do you have any additional comments or insights that would be helpful to this synthesis project? • Model codes for cities that demonstrate those components necessary to support transit. Land use policies, design ordi- nances, and subdivision requirements, and support all modes of travel. • You may want to consider contacting major developers or cities, if you may have not already done so, to get their view- point on this issue. They face different challenges and constraints that may impede the provision of transit service into their new developments and it may be valuable to identify these challenges to find any similarities. • The compilation and distribution of “best practice” guidebooks and other educational materials would be very helpful. Development and distribution of a basic document of the sort that could be easily customized by different transit agen- cies to suit their local conditions would also be helpful. • A database should be established with the latest best practices for transit station site and access planning, if it has not been done already. • Many cities and developers in our suburban area do not believe that there is a “nexus” between development and bus service that warrants private investment, since not enough people (less than 5%) use the bus service. Unlike providing infrastructure for automobile use the numbers do not justify investing in public transit infrastructure. 60