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 22
22 location argues for market-responsive planning and zoning. Key Conclusions Introducing zoning and building codes consistent with lifestyle · The majority of TOD residents along new transit systems preferences of TOD residents means individuals can more easily sort themselves into transit-served settings and act upon are childless singles or couples. · They are often younger working professionals, or older their travel preferences. Preferential strategies, like Location Efficient Mortgages (LEM), also can make it easier for more empty-nesters. There is a wide age spectrum. · They may have low, medium or high incomes; this is driven households to sort themselves into highly transit-accessible neighborhoods. by the design and price of the specific TOD housing, and Transit agencies, in this regard, cover a seemingly ever TOD developers will target/be able to predict their market. expanding range of activities. MTA in Maryland has been More higher incomes are being served as the United States investing $500,000 to $600,000 annually in TOD administra- continues to go through a robust construction phase of tion and planning to create more livable places and increase denser urban residential product. · TOD households typically own fewer cars because they ridership. MTA in Los Angeles, Sound Transit in Seattle, the RT in Sacramento, Triangle Transit in North Carolina, and have smaller households, and because they may forgo extra TriMet in Portland are part of the growing list of transit agen- cars due to transit's proximity. TOD households are almost cies that have passed transit agency funds through to local twice as likely to not own any car, and own almost half the governments to plan for TOD as part of developing new rail number of cars of other households. · The top three reasons households give for selecting a TOD systems (Arrington, 2003). BART has active planning partnerships underway at a dozen are housing/neighborhood design, housing cost, and prox- different stations with the objective of building stronger part- imity to transit. nerships with local governments and to encourage ridership growth on its system. In an innovative twist on that theme, Findings San Diego's MTDB has a San Diego city planner assigned to work with MTDB's planning staff as a liaison on TOD. NJ With an expanding inventory of built TODs to observe and Transit, the nation's largest state transportation system, pro- learn from, there is a growing body of evidence about who is vides TOD assistance to cities through the Transit-Friendly attracted to work, live, shop, and play in TODs. At the macro Communities (TFC) program and the Transit Village Initia- level, larger demographic trends washing over America with tive. The TFC program, started in 1996, allocates roughly the aging of the baby boomers and the growth of the Gener- $100,000 per community to hire preselected consulting teams ation X'ers (24-34) are helping drive a growing demand for a to get cities ready for serious transit village consideration. more urban real estate product. New Urban News (January/ Charlotte Area Transit (CATS), together with the City of February 2003) cites the following factors as helping to drive Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, has developed a 25-year the trend: a doubling of demand for homes within an easy regional transit/land-use plan, a joint development policy and walk of stores, and an increase in buyers who prefer dense, station area plans to guide growth along centers and corridors. compact homes. New Urban News quotes Dowell Meyer's Metra, Chicago's commuter rail operator, has developed strate- research indicating that this market segment is expected to ac- gies, principles and approaches to residential development in count for 31% of 2000-2010 homeowner growth. In addition, station areas targeted at communities and real estate profes- the number of U.S. households with children is projected to sionals. Finally, Parsons Brinckerhoff has identified nearly decline. In 1990 they constituted 33.6% of households; by 100 transit agencies that have prepared TOD design guide- 2010 they will drop to 29.5% of households. These forces com- lines as part of a strategy to grow ridership and encourage the plement and reinforce the growing demand for TOD. implementation of more TODs. Survey data and anecdotal case-study data offer strong in- sights into the demographic make-up of TOD residents. TODs often have large shares of childless couples, empty-nesters, TOD Resident/Tenant Generation X'ers, and foreign immigrants (some of whom Characteristics come from places with a heritage of transit-oriented living). 1. What are the demographic profiles of TOD residents and Table 1.12 shows the demographic characteristics of TODs employers? studied in the H-27 research. These data are consistent with 2. What motivates residents or employers to locate in TODs? other data showing that TODs attract smaller, typically child- Examples of motivators may include the quality of schools, less households. access to jobs, housing affordability, presence of transit Other research about who lives in TODs reinforces these services, neighborhood services and amenities, and com- findings. A recent study of Transit Villages in New Jersey munity perception. (Renne, 2003) reveals that they cater to a younger population
OCR for page 23
23 Table 1.12. Snapshot of TOD demographics from selected TCRP-H27 case studies. Project Transit TOD Type Demographic Snapshot Mode The Pearl Streetcar Urban High income, retiring seniors, childless urban District, Downtown professionals, limited lower income units by Portland, OR developer agreement Mockingbird Light Rail Urban 30-45 year old professionals who can afford to Station, Neighborhood own but prefer to rent Dallas, TX The Cedars, Light Rail Urban Lofts occupied by young professional couples Dallas, TX Neighborhood and empty nesters Center Light Rail Urban Mixed income by design, 75% earn less than Commons, Neighborhood $25,000, seniors housing Portland, OR Village Commuter Suburban Empty nesters and childless professionals Green, Rail Center Arlington Heights, IL "Triangle Commuter Suburban Over 50 empty nesters, under 30 professionals TOD," Rail Center with no kids La Grange, IL Market Commuter Suburban Long term local residents seeking smaller easy Square Rail Center to maintain properties in town (likely empty Townhomes nesters) Elmhurst, IL Addison Bus Suburban "Choice renters" singles, empty nesters, Circle, Center yuppies with no kids Addison, TX The Round, Light Rail Suburban Sales targeted to urban, "edgy" market Beaverton, Center (DINKS, retirees) OR Gaslight Commuter Suburban "Rail-based housing for childless households." Common, Rail Neighborhood Just three school-age children live in the 200 South apartments Orange, NJ with more racial and ethnic diversity, more immigrants, more At The Merrick TOD in Portland, the survey respondents singles, and more lower-income households. AvalonBay, an were split evenly between men and women. In addition, the apartment developer that has emphasized projects close to respondents: transit in high cost of entry markets, has learned that the prime market for its developments consists of Generation · Were primarily single-person households (73%); average X'ers, singles, and couples with few children, as well as the household size was 1.3; over-65 market who want to sell the suburban home and · Ranged in age from 20 to 87 (median age is 33 years); move back to the city (AvalonBay, 2003). · Have college degrees (68%) and work full time (75%); In Portland's downtown Pearl District, where virtually all of · Are childless; only one respondent indicated having a child the buildings are oriented towards transit, 6,400 units of new under age 18; and apartments and condominiums have been built in the past · Have a wide range of household income levels, with 41% 10 years. According to school district demographers, only earning $50,000 or greater (Dill, 2005). 25 school-age children live there, and less than 20 babies are ex- The most recent California study of TOD found the fol- pected each year (Gragg, 2005). (In response, Portland recently lowing attributes of 5,304 station-area residents residing in adopted developer bonuses and potential tax abatements for 26 housing projects near heavy-rail, light-rail, and commuter- family-size units and children's play areas in new residential rail stations (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004): projects. In addition, the city will begin planning a neighbor- hood park for the northern end of the Pearl District with child · Youth: The age structure of station-area residents was play facilities.) Anecdotal reasons given for the lack of children younger than that of the surrounding city; 62% of respon- include high housing costs (i.e., additional floor space for chil- dents were age 18 to 35. dren is prohibitively expensive), a lack of outdoor play spaces · Minorities: Because of a large affordable housing and re- and community center, and a lack of other children. development component, relatively higher shares of ethnic
OCR for page 24
24 minorities and non-whites were found among TOD hous- Table 1.14. 2025 household types ing projects. and projected TOD demand. · Office occupations: 70% of TOD employed-residents % of Total worked in office and professional occupations, which 2025 Potential TOD should be expected since California's rail systems provide Household Type Households Demand in 2025 good and frequent radial connections to downtown white- Singles and Couples, collar districts. No Children 55.5% 64.1% · Small households: TODs are more likely to have childless Other Households, households; 83% of respondents lived in 1-2 person No Children 12.6% 15.1% Married Couples households. with Children 21.8% 11.7% · New residents: TOD residents are newer to their current Single Parents, Other location than the typical resident of cities studied. Households with Children 10.1% 9.1% Source: CTOD, 2004 The CTOD study, which looked at all built rail stations across the United States, also finds smaller households in sta- Table 1.15. 2025 age distribution tion areas. Household size differences are more pronounced of households. in areas with small and medium sized transit systems, com- pared to larger cities with more extensive transit systems, as % of Total shown in Table 1.13. In these latter cities (e.g., New York 2025 Potential TOD Age Group Households Demand in 2025 City), larger households are more inclined to live in smaller housing units more typically associated with TODs (attached 15-34 22.0% 23.2% condominiums, townhouses, apartments) due to land and 35-64 50.4% 42.1% housing constraints. CTOD also concluded that TOD trends towards smaller, 65+ 27.5% 34.7% childless households is likely to continue. Table 1.14 shows that Source: CTOD, 2004 nearly two-thirds of the total demand for housing near transit will be generated by single households and couples without · In San Francisco and Los Angeles, TODs have about 10% children, a higher share than this group represents of the U.S. more nonwhites than their surrounding regions. In Miami, population as a whole. Households with children likely will TODs have 18% fewer nonwhites than the MSA. account for only 20% of demand for housing in TODs. · In Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Los In addition, as shown in Table 1.15, CTOD projects that Angeles, the percentage of foreign born was more than 10% households headed by individuals age 65 or older will be dis- higher in the TODs than the region. In Miami and Denver, proportionately represented in TODs. In contrast, households the percentage of foreign born population is slightly higher in the 35 to 64 age range will be underrepresented, as these in the region than the TODs. households are less likely to have a preference for TODs. Regarding the racial and immigrant status of TOD residents, Generalizing about TOD income levels is more difficult Renne (2005) found the following: than drawing conclusions about household size and lifestyle types. Apartment housing in older TODs often was built to · Overall, in 2000 the percent of nonwhite and foreign born serve lower income, transit dependent households, and some populations living in TODs was similar to the percent of current TOD projects still are built to attract these house- nonwhite and foreign born residents within the larger region. holds. Examples of these projects are the Center Commons, Table 1.13. Household size by transit system size, 2000. One Person Families of Three Housholds or More People Transit Metro Transit Metro System Size Zones Area Zones Area Small 51% 27% 19% 40% Medium 38% 26% 31% 41% Large 38% 24% 34% 45% Extensive 34% 27% 36% 42% Source: CTOD, 2004
OCR for page 25
25 Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons, and Fruitvale Transit Village, they did at their previous residence, and that 37% of respon- where public sector participation and funding were used to dents did not own any car, as shown in Table 1.16. construct new, affordable TOD housing that the market At The Merrick TOD, as shown in Table 1.17, only 8% of would not provide otherwise. residents have no vehicle available, and 73% of households As policy makers have more consciously used TODs to said moving to this place had no impact on the number of ve- shape development and increase transit ridership, the pool of hicles owned. Seventeen percent of households, however, said prospective tenants has been expanded to include condo-living, that they got rid of a vehicle because of the characteristics of higher-income groups that enjoy urban amenities (though the neighborhood. (Dill, 2005) they may live in suburban TODs). Thus, today's TODs show In her recent study of Bay Area TODs in 2000, Gossen (2005) a broad income range that reflects local land and construction found that car ownership levels systematically fell with dis- costs, specialized developer niches, and local government tance from a station, consistent with other findings in the lit- policies (e.g., subsidies) to proactively build housing for erature. The average vehicles per person were: 0.5 (< 1/4 mile); targeted income levels. 0.54 (1/4 to 1/2 mile); 0.61 (1/2 to 1 mile); 0.75 (> 1 mile - low- In the Portland region, for instance, downtown Pearl Dis- density suburbs). In fact, 70% of zero-vehicle households live trict condominiums sell for more than $200 per square foot within one mile of a Bay Area rail or ferry station. and are the most expensive housing units in the region. Orenco According to the 2000 Census, more than 12% of Arlington Station is an affluent suburban TOD where median monthly County households are without a vehicle, the highest rate incomes range from $5,000 to $6,000. At Center Commons, in the region outside the District of Columbia. The pro- however, about 75% of TOD residents' annual incomes are less portion of carless households is even higher in Arlington than $25,000 (this was a goal of the project). TOD income dis- County's increasingly urban Metro corridors, approaching parities like this exist throughout Portland and other regions. 20%. In several smaller communities along the Metro system At the national level, CTOD found that the median in- across the Potomac River in Maryland, such as Takoma Park comes of households in transit zones tend to be lower than and Silver Spring (to cite two examples), there is also a high those of households in larger metropolitan regions. For proportion of carless households: 16.2% in Takoma Park households with incomes between $10,000 and $60,000, the and 15.5% in Silver Spring. But in the surrounding suburbs, percent of households living in the region as a whole and in households without a car are a rarity. In Fairfax County, transit zones is similar. However, there are fewer households 4% are without cars. In Prince William only 3.5% are with- in transit zones than in the metro regions with incomes be- out cars. Arlington's healthy proportion of households with- tween $60,000 and $100,000. In Houston, Tampa, and Pitts- out cars is fueled in part by the number of singles who live in burgh, transit zone median incomes are slightly higher than the county. According to the 2000 Census, 40% of house- regional median incomes. holds are made up of singles (Dittmar and Ohland, 2004). Renne (2005) found higher than average TOD incomes in Auto ownership for selected TODs is shown in Table 1.18. Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Washington, D.C., and Dallas and suggests these cities are building more expensive and upscale Table 1.16. Auto ownership TODs. Renne found that TOD zone incomes were substan- at Center Commons TOD. tially lower than regional averages in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and that these TODs also were the only regions to Previously Currently Change No Car 21 36 42% have both significantly more nonwhite and foreign born res- One Car 60 54 -10% idents than the region. Two Cars 11 4 -64% Research by Gossen (2005) suggests that in urban settings Three Cars 3 2 -33% Five Cars 1 0 -100% TOD residents generally have higher incomes than other Source: Switzer, 2002 households. The higher housing price premiums for TOD liv- ing could account for this. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Table 1.17. Auto ownership Gossen found average incomes were higher within a quarter at The Merrick TOD. mile of rail stations than anywhere else in urban districts; only those living in suburban areas averaged higher incomes than TOD residents. The highest concentration of low-income % of Households households was within a half to one mile of rail stations. No Car 8% Regarding auto ownership, TOD residents tend to own One Car 75% fewer cars, and may be inclined to reduce car ownership upon Two Cars 14% moving into a TOD. Switzer (2002) found that at the Center Three Cars 3% Commons TOD, 30% of respondents owned fewer cars than Source: Dill, 2005
OCR for page 26
26 Table 1.18. 2000 auto ownership for selected TODs. Cars/ TOD Community Household Type Arlington County, VA 1.4 County Court House 1.1 Suburban Center Clarendon 1.3 Suburban Center Rosslyn 1.1 Suburban Center Ballston 1.2 Suburban Center San Francisco, CA 1.1 County Church/24th 1.1 Urban Neighborhood Embarcadero 0.5 Urban Neighborhood Cook County, IL 1.4 County LaSalle 0.7 Urban Downtown Chicago/Fullerton 1.1 Urban Neighborhood Chicago/Berwyn 0.7 Urban Neighborhood Evanston/Davis 1 Suburban Center Evanston/Dempster 1.2 Suburban Neighborhood Evanston/Main 1.3 Suburban Neighborhood Source: Dittmar and Ohland, 2004 In his analysis of 2000 census data, Renne (2005) found In the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey ad- that: ministered by RAND (Sastry, et al. 2000), residents were asked an open-ended question about factors they weighed in choos- · TOD households own an average of 0.9 cars compared to ing a neighborhood. Twenty-one percent cited transit access, 1.6 cars for comparable households not living in TODs. more than highway access (11%). When asked: "For your · TOD households are almost twice as likely to not own a car personal commute to school or work, which transportation (18.5% versus 10.7%). modes were important considerations in deciding where to · While about 66% of non-TOD households own 2 or more live," 14% cited only transit, 9% citied transit and walk/bike, cars, only about 40% of TOD households own as many cars. and 9% cited some other combination involving transit-- · In TODs, about 63% of households own fewer than two that is, around a third located with reference to transit com- cars, compared to 45% for other households. muting. Auto access alone was cited by just 12%. In his 2005 doctoral dissertation based on a survey of resi- In the survey conducted for H-27, the reduction of park- dents in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego County, ing requirements was cited as one of the most common in- Chatman found 74.4% of people living within half a mile of centives offered by local governments to accomplish TOD. At a sampled California rail station sought transit access when the same time, respondents rated "allowing a reduction in making a residential location choice. Furthermore, those parking" as only a marginally effective strategy to encourage seeking transit access to shops or services live an average of TOD, since developers rarely use it. The policy relationship 1.8 miles closer to a rail stop. However, proximity to transit between parking supply and TOD ridership is clearly under- for nonwork activities is likely a minor factor in residential stood. However, a remaining challenge is to identify effective location choices. Ben-Akiva and Bowman (1998) simultane- strategies to reduce parking in TODs that local governments ously modeled residential location choice and activity/travel and developers can actually embrace in the give-and-take of schedules using a nested logit method, finding little relation- the real world. ship between nonwork accessibility and the choice of resi- One of the factors that motivates residents to locate in dential neighborhood. Weighing the collective evidence, TODs is referred to in research as self-selection. That is, those Chatman (2005, p. 150) concluded that "auto-oriented self with a lifestyle predisposition for transit-oriented living con- selection does not appear to be particularly important in out- scientiously sort themselves into apartments, townhomes, of-home nonwork activity participation, but transit self- and single-family homes with an easy walk of a transit station. selection does play a limited role." Being near transit and being able to regularly get around via The most recent California study (Lund, et al., 2004) found trains and buses is important in residential location choice. that proximity to transit was ranked third among factors in- High ridership rates in TODs are partly explained as a mani- fluencing households to move into TODs, behind the cost festation of this lifestyle choice. and quality of housing. The higher density housing found in
OCR for page 27
27 TODs tends to keep housing prices more affordable. While 7. Shopping areas within walking distance; land prices are higher per square foot, this is more than offset 8. High level of upkeep in neighborhood; by the smaller total area of dwelling units that are purchased 9. Attractive appearance of neighborhood; and or leased. The California survey found that proximity to tran- 10. Safe neighborhood for walking (Dill, 2005). sit was most important among residents who had lived in the TOD the longest. This suggests those who self-select into rail- These studies show that good transit access is a primary fac- served neighborhoods tend to stay in place. The higher pre- tor in residential location decisions, consistent with studies that mium they place on proximity to transit is reflected not only find high rates of self-selection among TOD residents. Other in survey responses but also ridership statistics. Because most features that consistently rate as being important are the qual- TOD residents have no children, quality of schools was not a ity of the housing and community design, and housing cost. In major factor in moving into TOD neighborhoods: fewer than addition, suburban TOD residents often value local services one of 20 surveyed respondents identified this as a top three and amenities (e.g., in mixed use buildings, or a TOD center), factor in influencing their residential location choice. while households in more urban TODs value proximity to the In his survey of Center Commons residents, Switzer (2002) full range of land uses and activities that cities offer. Not sur- found that the most common reasons given for moving into the prising, school quality does not even register among TOD project were: new product/appealing design (20%), proximity households, as few TOD households have children. to transit (17%), price (16%; the project includes a significant For projects incorporating affordable housing into a TOD, affordable housing component), and general location (15%). experience indicates that affordability often outweighs any Other data, shown in Table 1.19, from Portland (Orenco transit considerations in making locational decisions. In mar- Station) shows a similar pattern; while transit proximity can kets like Portland (e.g., Center Commons) and San Jose (e.g., be an important factor in attracting TOD residents, the de- Ohlone-Chynoweth) where there are shortages of new, well- sign of the housing units and larger community may be more designed affordable projects, affordability is a prime attractor important. to TOD (according to TOD project managers). The Merrick TOD residents listed the following top 10 fac- The most important considerations for all retail develop- tors they considered when selecting their current home: ments are location, market, and design; proximity to transit is not a prime consideration, and the market must be viable 1. High quality living unit; even in transit's absence [Urban Land Institute (ULI), 2003]. 2. Easy access to downtown; Although a retail component may eventually become an 3. Good public transit service; excitement generator within a TOD, it cannot be the justifi- 4. Relatively new living unit; cation for the development. According to ULI, "Retail is the 5. Affordable living unit; one land use that is least likely to succeed where it lacks strong 6. Close to where I worked; support. Thus retail does not drive development around transit; it `follows rooftops'." TOD plans should carefully consider the volumes that retail Table 1.19. Best aspects/things liked developers require, as the rules specifying the distance that about Orenco Station. customers will travel to any particular store are inflexible. Feature Percent High density offices and residences can be good sources of Design of Community 13.28% transit riders, but they do not always ensure retail demand, Greenspaces/Parks 12.24% particularly if local retail demand already is being met. Community Orientation 10.94% According to CTOD, which tracks national demand for Town Center 10.42% TOD, firms and workers are increasingly exhibiting a pref- Alley Parking/Garage Design 9.11% erence for 24-hour neighborhoods. In the past companies Design of Homes 8.33% preferred suburban campus environments near freeways, and Pedestrian Friendly 6.25% regions lured employers without regard to bigger picture Close to Mass Transit 4.95% development goals. Now other issues are coming into play, Small Lots/Yards 4.95% including the rise of the creative class and the increasing im- Quiet Community 3.13% Clubhouse/Pool 2.86% portance of technology and talent in a region's economic de- Safety 2.80% velopment strategy. Because firms are chasing talent, which is General Location 2.08% choosing to locate in diverse, lively urban regions, firms now Close to Work 1.30% prefer these locations. According to a recent Jones Lang Other 7.55% LaSalle survey (CTOD, 2005), access to transit is very impor- Source: Podobnik, 2002 tant to 70% of new economy companies.
OCR for page 28
28 In the Portland area, TOD is becoming increasingly inte- Table 1.20. Workplace culture: grated with the high tech sector. Orenco Station in Hillsboro what's out and what's in. is located very near to Intel (not part of the project), and a "Out" "In" large share of Orenco residents are Intel employees that ben- Suburban/exurban campus locations Locations close to transit efit from short commutes. Open Source Development Labs, Corporate campuses Mixed-use developments a global consortium of leading technology companies dedi- Kiss and ride Live, work, play, and ride cated to promoting the Linux operating system, located to Location near CEO's home Location convenient for workers The Round in Beaverton, in part to capitalize on rail access Free parking Free transit passes to downtown Portland and the airport. Just down the line in Driving to lunch Walking to lunch Hillsboro, Yahoo Inc. recently leased space right along the Errands on the way home Errands at lunchtime rail line, citing a mix of factors including: access to public Commuting car Fuel-efficient station car transit, daycare options, affordable housing, and quality of Quality of the workplace Quality of life life. Source: ULI, 2003 ULI (2003) reiterates that if companies see transit as slow, unreliable, or not reaching enough of their workers, staff in to a similar clientele, including projects currently under con- charge of locations decisions will not pay attention to transit. struction. The analyst's challenge is to estimate the market When transit is viewed as a tool for recruiting scarce talent, share of household growth that would select that project, as however, companies will list good transit access as a criterion well as the likely absorption rate of the houses (how long it in site selection choices. ULI also notes that more companies would take for the houses on the market to sell, be leased, or indeed seem to be focusing on transit access for their em- rented). The developer's challenge is to make sure the esti- ployees, even if management does not intend to use transit. mated market share at the proposed price point is sufficient Table 1.20 summarizes ULI's perception of broad office loca- to ensure the project's success. tion trends. As indicated in H-27, there is growing experience with From the perspective of the prospective TOD developer, TOD projects in the development community (developers, the development process typically begins with an idea, either market analysts, architects, transportation consultants, and a site looking for a use, or a use looking for a site. A developer lenders) and a growing base of information used to support usually will initiate a TOD project based on experience with the development process and understand the prospective similar projects, but a TOD development also could be a nat- clientele, residents, and businesses. In Washington, D.C., ural evolution for a developer with a background in urban or while there have not been statistically rigorous studies of the infill projects. Market analysis for such a project, as with all impact of transit access on property values, market studies es- developments, will consider who will buy or rent in such a de- tablish the premium for rental properties at about 7%. This velopment at what costs. Land cost sets the broad parameters means that for a project well served by transit, rents can be of the project, with an understanding of the development 7% higher than comparable properties not so well located. It costs for such a project, and any special construction or as- also would mean, for example, that if a developer were able to sessment costs, such as participation with the transit agency offer the same rents, such a project would have enormous in associated facilities. competitive appeal. Once broad parameters of project costs have been estab- The expanding portfolio of TOD projects is providing lished, often with some form of option to hold the property greater insight into TOD market advantages, as well as de- while further feasibility is examined, the developer initiates mographic and lifestyle characteristics of residents. These increasingly detailed studies of market, design, and finance. findings are useful not only in the product development Market studies will examine not only potential clients, but phase, but also in marketing the product. There is growing also competitive projects, both supply and demand. The mar- awareness among developers that an important submarket of ket analysis for a proposed multi-family residential project, people are attracted to TOD projects, greater understanding for example, would compare rents for similar projects targeted of who the people are, and why they are attracted to TODs.