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 97
transit stations found that the station areas have more often filled with non-residential develop-
ment than with housing. This has had positive revenue implications for jurisdictions, but has often
been in spite of stated policies promoting residential development (Boarnet and Crane, 1997).
Table 17-42 Sample Property Value Impacts of Rail Station and Transit Mall Proximity
Urban Area Residential Office Date of Studies Cited
Washington, DC Rents decreased about Prices decreased $2.30 Residential: 1996
2.5% for each one-tenth of per square foot (SF) for
a mile from Metro every 1,000 feet further Office: 2000
station. from Metro station.
Denver, CO Englewood TOD Office rents along Residential: June 2002
(CityCenter) apartments downtown bus transit
had average monthly rent mall were 8% to 16% Office: 2002
of between $1,005 and higher than comparable
$1,735, more than double space off the mall.
the $500 to $700 per
month elsewhere.
San Francisco, CA Single family home prices Average land price 1999
declined by $3,200 to decreased from $74 per
$3,700 each mile farther SF for office properties
from a BART station. within 0.25 miles of
Apartments near BART BART to $30 per SF for
stations rented for 15% to properties more than
26% more. 0.5 miles from BART.
Sources: Li (2001), Benjamin and Sirmans (1996), and Cervero et al. (2004).
The market premium that has emerged for transit-adjacent residences and recent changes allowing
proportionally higher mortgage amounts for residences near transit have made building housing
close to transit stations more attractive to developers. The so-called "location-efficient mortgage"
allows borrowers to buy more expensive housing than they might otherwise be able to afford,
potentially enabling residency next to a transit station that would otherwise have been out-of-reach
financially. Fannie Mae's Smart Commute Initiative has allowed this treatment at both rail- and
bus-centered TODs. Placing large numbers of potential riders next to the station also produces
economic benefits for the transit agency through higher ridership and farebox revenue (Dittmar
and Poticha, 2004; Salmon, 2004).
Transit Oriented Development Index
An interest in characterizing the "TOD-ness" of projects near transit has been expressed in
various forms by a number of researchers and practitioners. This interest applies not only to
backward-looking assessments primarily research in nature, but most especially to forward-
looking planning and forecasting applications. The "TOD Index" was imagined as a way to
characterize the degree to which a project functions as TOD. The important elements of
"successful" TOD would be captured in such an index. Inspiration was found in a number of
17-97
OCR for page 98
recent TOD publications as well as original research performed by the Handbook authors as part
of TCRP Project B-12B.
Reviewing proposed measures of TOD success was a useful starting point in visualizing a TOD
Index. NCHRP Project 20-65(5) is a selected example of an effort focused on developing a strategy
to measure the success of TOD. A national survey of 30 professionals highlighted fifteen success
measures that were considered "very useful" by more than half of the respondents. A secondary
ranking exercise, which added in findings from a literature and website review, brought out transit
ridership as the most important indicator. The ridership indicator was followed by density, design
quality, and pedestrian friendliness indicators; parking metrics; and economic indicators including
tax revenue. Most of the indicators are suitable for use in either backward- or forward-looking
approaches (Renne and Wells, 2005). Table 17-43 presents a summary of the identified key indica-
tors as well as the rankings from the two exercises.
Table 17-43 Useful Indicators for TOD Identified by 30 Professionals
Percentage
Identifying
as "Very Secondary
Indicator Category Useful" Ranking
Transit ridership (e.g., boardings) Travel behavior 70 1
Population/housing density Built environment 67 2
Employment density (e.g., number of jobs per Economic/ 53 2
acre) Built environment
Qualitative rating of streetscape (i.e., pedestrian Built environment 77 3
orientation, human scale)
Mixed-use structures (number or square footage) Built environment 60 4
Pedestrian activity counts Travel behavior 77 5
Number of intersections or street crossings Built environment 60 5
improved for pedestrian safety
Estimated increase in property value Economic 63 6
Public perception (e.g., administered survey) Social diversity/ 63 7
Quality
Number of bus, ferry, shuttle, or jitney services Travel behavior 63 8
connecting to transit station
Number of parking spaces for residents, tenants, Travel behavior 53 9
visitors, commuters, and shared
Estimated amount of private investment Economic 57 --
Number of convenience or service retail Economic 53 --
establishments (e.g., dry cleaners, video rental)
Estimated amount of private investment by type Economic 52 --
of land use
Source: Based on Renne and Wells (2005).
17-98
OCR for page 99
A consideration here is that the top-ranked, transit ridership indicator and other "outcome"
indicators would not be suitable for use in any index that might evolve into a travel demand or
economic model variable or variables employed in the prediction of mode choice (and thus transit
ridership) or other travel or economic results included in the set of indicators. A value being
estimated (dependent variable) cannot also be a model input (independent variable).
The concept of "location efficiency" has been put forward as one comprehensive measure of TOD
success. Three to four defining components of location efficiency have been suggested as specific
indicators. The proposal involving three identifiers focuses on density, transit accessibility, and
pedestrian friendliness. Density leads to more people within reach of the particular transit station,
accessibility leads to more origins and destinations reachable through the transit system, and
pedestrian friendliness provides easy walk access and egress to the transit station or stops
(Dittmar and Poticha, 2004). The proposal involving four identifiers utilizes as one primary
characteristic residential density and commercial intensity combined, adds a diverse mix of land
uses for provision of needed services and amenities, addresses transit accessibility by specifying
centrally and conveniently located transit stations and stops, and encompasses a directly
connected network of walkways and sidewalks in the company of pedestrian-scale streets
(Hendricks, 2005; Cervero et al., 2004).
Each of these various components can and has been represented to some degree in individual
regional travel demand models (Reiff and Kim, 2003; Evans and Stryker, 2005; Kuzmyak, Baber,
and Savory, 2006). Researchers have also developed measures of these components for sketch plan-
ning purposes (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a; Schlossberg et al., 2004). At a more detailed
level, Chapter 15, "Land Use and Site Design," offers a list of transit supportive design elements
deemed critical--in addition to density and mix--for full-featured TODs. These are found in
Chapter 15 under "Response by Type of Strategy"--"Site Design"--"Transit Supportive Design
and Travel Behavior" and include such measures not mentioned above as connectivity of streets
for bus routing without circuitry, and alignment of transit stops and major building entrances.
For the TOD Index, the Handbook authors tried to limit their inquiry to the travel demand
perspective. In support of the concept, a modest original research investigation was undertaken of
TOD effects on non-work travel in Portland, Oregon. The approach and findings are described
within the "Portland, Oregon, Metro Region TOD Travel Effects Investigation" case study. The test
model added a set of simple yes-no TOD "dummy" variables--indicating presence of TOD
characteristics--to a regional non-work mode share research model that already included an
advanced measure encompassing key urban design descriptors. Including the dummy variables
appeared to improve the predictive capability of the model at the same time as the composite land
use mix and connectivity measure remained roughly as significant a variable as before (Evans and
Stryker, 2005).
Potential indicators that might likely make up such a TOD Index were identified and categorized
as "essential" and "supportive." The selected indicators incorporate many of the elements cited by
others, and address mostly quantifiable aspects of TOD. More research is needed to determine the
appropriate weightings that might be given the various indicators within the Index and indeed
whether the list of indicators itself can be improved. Table 17-44 lists the "essential" TOD Index
indicators. Table 17-45 presents the "supportive" indicators.
17-99
OCR for page 100
At this stage the TOD Index is offered as a general approach to characterizing and evaluating the
degree to which a project functions or would function as a TOD, and as a preliminary
design-planning guidance tool. It is not presented as something ready-made for use in travel
demand modeling. It does, however, offer a listing from which to selectively draw promising mea-
sures susceptible to more precise definition as model variables or design guidelines. Ultimately, a
suitably constructed and calibrated TOD Index could lead to a continuous model variable that
might provide additional travel demand model explanatory power. In the meantime, the TOD
Index is presented here as a research approach and planning tool.
17-100
OCR for page 101
Table 17-44 The TOD Index--Essential Indicators
Indicator Desired Value
Centrally Located Development surrounds the transit station/stop and its primary edge is within
Transit 5 minutes or about 0.25 miles of the transit node. Very high quality transit
service may support a 10-minute (0.50 mile) walk catchment area. (See
"Underlying Traveler Response Factors"--"Land Use and Site Design").
Pedestrian Priority Block perimeter lengths are walkable (no more than 0.25 miles). By way of
example, blocks in downtown Portland are 200 feet on a side (0.15 miles
perimeter). Walkways are direct and attractive and buildings are sidewalk-
oriented. Moving people rather than cars should be the traffic management
priority, with easy street crossings, short signal cycle lengths, right-turn-on-red
prohibitions. Lack of street connectivity can lead to much longer walking
distances as compared to airline distances. (See "Land Use and Site Design"
and case study, "Travel Findings for Individual Portland, Oregon, Area
TODs").
High-Quality Frequent, highly-reliable, and comfortable transit service is provided. Most
Transit TODs have very high frequency service during the peak (headways of 5 to 8
minutes or less). Good off-peak service should also be provided to make life
without an automobile not only possible, but easy (headways of 15 minutes or
less). (See "Underlying Traveler Response Factors"--"Transit Service
Characteristics").
Mix of Uses Development has elements that create a self-sufficient community where daily
needs such as grocery shopping can be accomplished without need for a car
and preferably by walking. Transit can provide connectivity to some uses not
present in the community, but located close at hand to stops along the primary
transit line, such as jobs, entertainment, and destination retail. (See "Response
by TOD Dimension and Strategy"--"Response to TOD by Land Use Mix").
Supportive Density is sufficient to enable cost-effective transit service and infrastructure
Density provision, create a market supportive of utility retail, and keep local attractions
and destinations within short walking distances. High densities are associated
with numerous aspects of TOD success. Residential density guidelines for
TOD in Portland, Oregon, as an example, range from 12 to 30 units per acre
depending on distance from the station and primary transit mode. In the Puget
Sound Region, an employment density guideline of 50 jobs per gross acre is
suggested to support LRT TOD (Cervero et al., 2004). (See also "Underlying
Traveler Response Factors"--"Land Use and Site Design"--"TOD-Supportive
Density" and in Chapter 15, "Related Information and Impacts"--"Transit
Service Feasibility Guidelines"--"Density Thresholds for Transit Service"
including Tables 15-48 and 15-49.)
Parking Parking minimums are avoided, parking maximums are encouraged, and
Management parking costs are charged to users. Parking requirements are reduced from
those of standard development to account for and encourage more transit and
walking and take advantage of shared parking opportunities. Structured
parking, satellite parking, underground parking, and parking with street-facing
office or retail uses are among the techniques employed to avoid dead blocks
and enable clear walking paths providing visibility of the transit station. (See
also "Underlying Traveler Response Factors"--"Parking Supply" and "Parking
Pricing and Transit Support").
