National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access

« Previous: Chapter 10 - Automobile Access and Park-and-Ride
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 11 - TOD and Station Access." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 129

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.

115 Land development considerations are an essential part of station access and design. Development opportunities depend on station location, the character of surrounding areas, and market potential. Thus, they may vary along any given rapid transit line. Also important are planning and zoning requirements, cooperative working arrangements between transit agencies and local planning groups, and the presence of planning and policy guidelines. This chapter presents the salient issues and opportunities, with a focus on TOD. It describes land development around stations, presents general guidelines, describes and analyzes the trade-offs between TOD and station parking, and suggests possible directions for existing and proposed systems. TOD can be defined as the planning and design of a mix of medium- or high-density land uses around a transit station that serves as the focal point of the development. Its goals are to better integrate the transit system with the surrounding community (as in Exhibit 11-1), increase transit ridership, and enhance non-motorized access to transit. It is not highway-oriented development that just happens to be close to stations; diversity and walkability are essential. TOD has several important advantages: • It can make the transit station environment more cohesive with the surrounding areas. • It generates fewer motor vehicle trips per unit of development, compared with similar uses located elsewhere (19). • Under specific circumstances, it can reduce the development’s parking demand by up to 50 percent, compared with similar uses elsewhere (21). Issues and Opportunities Planning for TOD is perhaps the most complex aspect of station planning because it involves several different entities with widely differing interests. Beyond the transit agency, it includes local governments, the local community, and private developers. Three critical and inter-related issues regarding TOD emerged from the case studies conducted at BART (San Francisco), Los Angeles Metro, MARTA (Atlanta), MBTA (Boston), Metro-North (New York), New Jersey Transit, OC Transpo (Ottawa), and RTD (Denver). These issues were: (1) balancing parking needs and locations with developer expectations (actually or apparently driven by market factors); (2) financing the TOD, particularly parking, to meet the needs of both commuters and private developers; and (3) neighborhood concerns about the TOD, its potential residents, and potential problems with spillover parking. C H A P T E R 1 1 TOD and Station Access

116 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Parking is a persistent issue because TOD projects commonly displace existing surface parking. TOD typically is placed where there is already high market demand (which makes TOD viable), and parking is therefore scarce. Since the park-and-ride spaces were present before the TOD project, and commuter habits have already been formed, a reduction in station parking can lead to spillover parking problems. Transit agency station access guidelines or policies usually require “one-for-one” replacement of lost parking, and when there are constraints on available nearby land or funding, the identified solution is usually a more costly parking structure (Exhibit 11-2). In such cases, the transit agency should explore trade-offs to find ways to make TOD work. Some flexibility in parking replacement guidelines or policies may lead to successful compromises. Precise one-for-one replacement may be unnecessary: where rapid transit services are competitive in terms of quality and capacity, it has sometimes been possible to convert park-and-ride travelers to bus access, either directly or through a remote parking facility. TOD parking should generally be limited, and parking pricing can also be considered for added leverage. The access planning tool developed with this guidebook assists in weighing the trade-offs between parking and TOD, including evaluating impacts of parking pricing. Appendix C provides detailed instructions on using the access planning tool. Some transit agencies have addressed parking constraints by subsidizing the cost of park- ing structures to make projects feasible for private developers. Funding through California’s Proposition 1C has made this possible for BART and LA Metro. NJ Transit and other agencies have also funded the construction of parking structures to make TOD feasible for developers. Whether this approach can be followed elsewhere depends on the availability of funds and the cost-effectiveness of “buying” TOD with subsidized parking infrastructure. These will necessarily be local decisions. Transit agencies with active joint development programs (LA Metro, BART, and WMATA among the case studies analyzed for this research) have found that agency-wide joint development policies can benefit negotiating solutions that help achieve agency goals. These policies define Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11-1. Example of station design integrated into the surrounding community (Englewood RTD Station, Denver).

TOD and Station Access 117 development requirements and procedures, and provide criteria for evaluating competing development proposals. Neighborhood concerns about TOD can include resistance to changes in density, along with concerns about spillover traffic and parking and an influx of new, perhaps different, neighbors. These can be complex issues, but they have been addressed through the planning process with outreach, collaborative planning, and design adaptations and, in some cases, community-based design charrettes in which community–agency teams identify problems and seek design and operating solutions for them. These processes and financing actions, while they will not always work, offer the basis for making the trade-offs and compromises often necessary to implement TOD. The value of such actions can be assessed over the long run by tracking the implementation and operation of local TODs. Development Types and Sizes The types and sizes of TOD in rapid transit station environs depend on many related factors. These factors include land size, shape, terrain, and costs; zoning requirements; market potential; transit ridership effects; and traffic and parking impacts. The basic types of land development are summarized in Exhibit 11-3 and consist of the following: • At one end of the spectrum are activities that are located within the transit station, such as newsstands and eating establishments that draw their patrons from people traveling to Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11-2. Parking structure at a rapid transit station (Sierra Madre Metro Station, Los Angeles).

118 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations or from trains. These activities generate few, if any, traffic, parking, or transit ridership impacts. • Next in size are small convenience retail stores and eating establishments located along streets that front the transit station. In most cases, these activities also generate minimal impacts. • Residential developments that are located near stations may generate rapid transit trips, especially where transit provides fast and frequent service to the city centers. Parking requirements are linked to non-work travel requirements, since the work trip is likely to be made by rapid transit. • Retail and mixed-use developments around stations require parking space beyond that normally provided by park-and-ride facilities. A common practice is to increase the avail- able parking space by building garages serving both development visitors and commuters. Increased traffic volumes usually call for roadway improvements. These developments can generate increased transit ridership and can also enhance the pedestrian environment for existing passengers (Exhibit 11-4 and Exhibit 11-5 show examples of development adjacent to rail stations). • Large scale mega-center developments have the combined effects of increasing both transit rider- ship and parking. A planning challenge is making them both transit- and pedestrian-friendly. Exhibit 11-3. Basic types of TOD. Commercial within Station Commercial on Adjacent Streets Residential Development Commercial or Mixed-Use Development Large Scale Mega-Center (or Town Center) Central Business District Location Within, above, or below station Around station Area surrounding station Area adjacent to and surrounding station Area adjacent to and surrounding station Town Center City center and environs Activities Convenience retail Fast food establishments Office: above/below station Convenience retail Eating establishments Mainly trips to work/school Shop GAF retail Office Some residential Retail Office Residential Retail Office Government Some residential Examples Grand Central Station, NY Metro-North New Haven Station, CT Metro-North Westport Station, CT Francisco Station, Brown Line, Chicago Lenox Square, Atlanta Central City, Los Angeles Downtown Boston Downtown San Francisco Transit Ridership Mainly existing riders Mainly existing riders Some new riders Some new riders, mainly from new residential areas Could attract considerable new transit riders Would attract considerable new transit riders Traffic & Parking Impacts Minimum Minimum Some, however residential parking can be removed from station parking Could require garages to accommodate top patrons, likely increase in street traffic volume Considerable, would need adequate development space and addition to parking supply Considerable. Best strategy is to limit CBD employee parking expansion

TOD and Station Access 119 • At the other end of the TOD spectrum is the expansion and intensification of the city center and its environs. In these cases, pedestrian circulation and transit access should be encouraged. Parking, where provided, should be limited to short-term users. TOD—Where Does It Work? TOD works best where there is a strong market and good transit agency and community support. It is generally viable where there is proximate medium to high residential development or where developable land is available (see Exhibit 11-6), and the TOD serves to integrate the community with the nearby rapid transit station. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11-4. Commuter rail TOD (Kent, Washington). Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11-5. Example of pedestrian-friendly mixed-use TOD (Fruitvale BART Station, Oakland).

120 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations The number of TOD projects continues to increase. Some illustrated examples are shown in Exhibit 11-7. Further examples of TOD are found in many urban areas, such as San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, and include the following: • Arlington, Virginia, where the Metro line runs in a subway, has adopted form-based zoning, with commercial zoning around rail stations. Rosslyn has emerged as a major center because of the excellent transit service and its proximity to Central Washington. • Major stations in affluent areas such as Friendship Heights, Bethesda, and Silver Spring, Maryland, have attracted considerable development, including large retail stores. • Atlanta’s north corridor rail line, located alongside or within the Route 400 freeway, has major developments at several stations, including the Lindbergh Center, Medical Center, and North Spring stations. • TriMet’s Westside MAX light rail has attracted TOD at several stations, including Orenco Station and 185th Street. General Guidelines Some guidelines and perspectives for TOD follow: 1. Serve Strong Markets. Viable markets are essential. Markets depend on population, the income and demographic characteristics of the likely catchment area, and the likely competition. Densely developed neighborhoods, especially within a ½-mile radius of rapid transit stations, can provide a good market. Some activities in TODs, however, will attract patrons from a large area by rail or by road. 2. Reflect Community Objectives. TOD in rapid transit station environs should reflect com- munity goals and objectives. The sizes and types of development should be acceptable to the impacted community (see Exhibit 11-8). 3. Provide Supportive Community Zoning. Zoning policies for the station and its environs should support the planned development. “Station overlay” zones are one possible way to permit desired developments. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11-6. Under-utilized surface parking lot as development opportunity (Metropark, NJ).

TOD and Station Access 121 4. Transit Agency Initiatives. Transit agencies should take the initiative. The Denver RTD suggests preparing a strategic plan for TOD. This plan should be visible and continuously updated. The policies should form an integral part of the station design process (23). These policies define development requirements and procedures, and provide criteria for evaluating competing development proposals. Several North American transit agencies have begun to act as developers, financing and organizing developments around their stations. TriMet in Portland, Oregon, for example, partnered with the Portland Development Commission to develop a 3-acre site for a 100,000-square-foot medical office building that was built along the Red and Blue Max Lines (24) and that includes both station area plazas. 5. Advance Property Acquisition. Land in the environs of stations should be acquired by transit agencies once the rapid transit alignment is finalized. This is especially important along extensions of both existing and new services. It will make the land readily available Exhibit 11-7. Examples of mixed-use TOD projects. Locationa Development Mix Situation Travel Impact Ballston Station Area Arlington, VA 1960-2002 5,914 residential units Office: 5,721,000 sf Retail: 840,000 sf Hotel: 430 rooms The Ballston area has transformed from an automobile-oriented close-in suburb into a full-fledged TOD since the HRT Metrorail station opened in 1979, supported by strong planning. Retail activity in Ballston is bolstered by an enclosed destination shopping mall located within walking distance. The walk mode share of access/egress for the station in 2002 was 67% of about 22,000 average daily entries plus exits. Case study, “Arlington County, Virginia, TOD Densities,” provides additional findings. Village Green Arlington Heights, IL 2001 250 condominiums Office: 17,000 sf Retail: 53,000 sf The Village Green project is located in downtown Arlington Heights, near the commuter railroad station. A big grocery store is also within walking distance. One of several downtown redevelopment projects. Of all downtown residents (inclusive of Village Green project), 17% report Metra as their primary commute mode, versus 7% for all of Arlington Heights. Mockingbird Station Dallas, TX 2000 211 apartments Office: 140,000 sf Retail: 180,000 sfb This $105 million project is located on a 10-acre site 4 miles from the CBD via LRT, adjacent to SMU and the North Central Expressway. A full service grocery store is within 5 minutes on foot. Parking requirement reduction of 27% was allowed for shared use parking. About 10% of patrons are reported to arrive by transit. Hazard Center San Diego, CA 1997 120 condominiums Office: 300,000 sf Retail: 136,000 sf Hotel: 300 rooms Constructed on formerly industrial land, this development on the Mission Valley LRT line has gradually grown into a horizontally mixed, mixed-use center. Pedestrian-friendly design encourages living, working, and shopping within the self-contained community. No quantitative travel data given. The supermarket has been observed to serve customers from other rail stations. Notes: Source: a Date(s) indicate time of implementation for the development mix indicated. b Figure includes retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses. sf = square feet. TCRP Report 102 (22)

122 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations for development before the line is built and opened for revenue service. It allows timely construction of TOD. 6. Focus on Maximizing Ridership. Transit and planning agencies should encourage land uses that will contribute to rapid transit ridership. Examples of such uses include residential developments and large office complexes that are clustered around stations. BART found that transit will capture over 40 percent of residential work trips. Exhibit 11-9 illustrates the transit capture assumptions by trip type at BART. 7. Provide Developments Instead of Parking. There are certain situations where TOD should be considered as an alternative to providing parking. These locations include: (1) the city Development type Trip type Trip type split (%) Percent transit capture (%) Residential Residential work 25 40.5 Residential non-work 75 8.55 Retail All 100 11.7 Medical Office All 100 101 1 Medical office transit capture was estimated by BART Source: BART (1) Exhibit 11-9. Example TOD transit capture by trip type. Source: NJ Transit Exhibit 11-8. TOD integrated into community revitalization (Rahway, NJ).

TOD and Station Access 123 center, (2) high-density residential and commercial areas with good pedestrian access, (3) long-established outlying business districts, and (4) locations of strong cultural or historic interest, where the existing urban fabric should be enhanced. Examples include 125th Street in Manhattan; the Red Line through Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the Blue and Orange Lines through Arlington County, Virginia. 8. Provide Developments With Appropriate Parking. Most outlying rapid transit rail stations provide extensive park-and-ride space at suburban stations. The spaces are usually open-lot parking. When TOD is provided at or adjacent to these stations, careful review of parking demand is required. Travel modes to TOD office and retail typically rely less on driving than other suburban developments (25). More rather than less parking generally should be provided to accommodate the increased use. This is sometimes achieved by converting open-lot parking into structured parking. Sometimes a new parking garage is built for the planned developments. Cost-sharing policies are desirable. The Urban Land Institute, for example, suggests more parking, particularly a new parking structure connecting to the station boarding platform (26). Some communities have granted commercial parking reductions at selected TODs. Reported examples are given in Exhibit 11-10. In 2005, about 70 percent of the transit agencies with replacement policies reported requiring one-for-one replacement (or more) of station parking lost to TOD construction (27). Several transit agencies, including BART and WMATA, now allow park-and-ride space reductions upon introduction of TOD (29). Comparisons of TOD and Park-And-Ride TOD can be a complement or an alternative to park-and-ride. The key considerations include the size, location, and density of TOD and the surrounding areas. Comparisons should include public cost and ridership impacts. Considerations include: • Large office and mixed-use complexes located close to rapid transit stations can attract new riders, provided the service is direct and convenient. The CBDs of many large cities are prime Exhibit 11-10. Commercial parking reductions granted at selected TODs. Location Land Use Parking Reduction Pacific Court (Long Beach, CA) Retail 60% Uptown District (San Diego, CA) Commercial 12% Rio Vista West (San Diego, CA) Retail/Commercial 15% Pleasant Hill (CA) Office 34% Pleasant Hill (CA) Retail 20% Dadeland South (Miami, FL) Office 38% City of Arlington (VA) Office 48%-57% Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, GA) Speculative Office 19% Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, GA) Retail 26% Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, GA) Single Tenant Office Towers 29%-70% Portland (OR) Suburbsa General Office 17% Portland (OR) Suburbsa Retail/Commercial 18% Note: a Calculated relative to maximums specified in Metro’s Title 2 Regional Parking Ratios. Source: Statewide TOD Study (28)

124 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations examples, as are some other outlying TODs (e.g., Lloyd District in Portland, Oregon; Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, and Silver Spring, Maryland). High development densities, coupled with limited and expensive parking, are conducive to rapid transit ridership. This is also the case for some major outlying TODs. • Typical TODs can sometimes create additional ridership when there is no change in transit parking space, or where the existing park-and-ride spaces are under-utilized. • Where TOD reduces fully utilized park-and-ride space, the TOD ridership gain usually does not offset the ridership loss from transit parking reductions. • Park-and-ride facilities require public investments to build and operate the parking space. Sometimes part (or all) of this investment can be recovered from parking charges. In contrast, TOD usually requires little, if any, public costs; it can also generate tax revenues for the neigh- boring community. Costs Illustrative costs for park-and-ride facilities were derived from information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They are expressed in both cost per space and costs per thousand feet of ground area. Exhibit 11-11 shows the key assumptions. Exhibit 11-12 shows the estimated costs for surface lots, above-grade parking structures, and below-grade parking structures. Both construction and operating costs are indicated. The annual average debt service is based on a 4 percent interest rate and a 30-year service life. Longer debt service (amortization) periods would reduce these annual costs slightly. Riders The number of rapid transit riders generated by park-and-ride facilities and TOD depend upon the amount of parking space and TOD provided, the trips generated per space or square foot of development, the likely number of passengers per vehicle, and the likely rapid transit capture rates. Ridership estimates also can be based on the experience at stations elsewhere along the line. Exhibit 11-11. Key assumptions for parking facility development (2010 dollars). Construction Costs (2008-10) Lot $4,200 – 5,250 per space Garage $14,000 – 17,000 per space Underground $25,000 – 35,000 per space Capital Recover Factor 4% over 30 years = 0.05783 Annual Operating Costs Lot $100-130 per space Garage $800 per space Underground $1,000 per space Parking Space Size Urban lot 300 square feet Suburban lot 400 square feet Garage 300 square feet Source: Transportation Planning Handbook (30)

TOD and Station Access 125 The comparative analysis is keyed to the trip generation and ridership per 1,000 square feet of effective ground floor area. The rapid transit boardings and alightings per 1,000 square feet of ground floor area for each type of land user can be estimated as follows: R = X × V × N × O × P where: R = rapid transit riders per day per 1,000 square feet of development; X = proportion of area available for development; V = vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of ground floor space; O = people per automobile; P = rapid transit capture rate (% of TOD patrons using rapid transit); and N = number of floors or levels. Trip Rates and Vehicle Occupancies Examples of automobile trip ends (origins plus destinations) for residential, retail, office, and park-and-ride uses are shown in Exhibit 11-13. The residential and commercial uses are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation rates; the “effective” rates for these uses assume that part of the ground floor (or area) would be devoted to parking that would serve the TOD. These rates are a guide; agencies can modify them to reflect specific local conditions. The table also shows suggested car occupancies ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 people per vehicle that may be assumed for various uses. In practice, occupancies will vary by time of day. Exhibit 11-12. Estimated annual parking costs per thousand square feet of ground area. Parking Type Spaces/1,000 sq ft Total capital costs Annual capital costs a Annual operating costs Total annual Costs Surface Lot Urban 3.3 $11,550 $668 $330 $998 Suburban 2.5 $12,500 $723 $330 $1,053 Above-Grade Structure 2 levels 6.6 $92,400 $5,343 $10,623 $15,966 4 levels 14.2 $198,000 $11,450 $22,010 $33,460 6 levels 19.8 $316,800 $18,320 $34,160 $52,480 Underground 1 level 3.3 $82,500 $4,771 $8,021 $12,792 2 levels 6.6 $198,000 $11,450 $18,050 $29,500 3 levels 9.7 $346,500 $20,038 $29,938 $49,976 Bus Bay 0.2 $200,000 $11,570 $6,158 $17,728 Bike Parking 20 $4,000 $231 $731 $962 Note: Excludes land costs a 4% over 30 years Source: Transportation Planning Handbook (30)

126 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Proportion Riding Rapid Transit Park-and-ride trips are oriented to the rapid transit line. Trips to and from retail, residential, and office uses would likely come from several directions, hence the proportion would be less (typically 10 to 20 percent). However, very large office complexes could likely attract 25 percent or more of generated trips from transit. Some people live close to the rapid transit line to reach large city centers. In these cases, higher transit mode splits are likely. Therefore, transit agencies should base percentages on actual experience. Illustrative Effects Illustrative rapid transit ridership effects of TOD and park-and-ride at outlying stations are shown in Exhibit 11-14. The values give the estimated number of transit riders per 1,000 square feet of ground area. Estimates are provided for park-and-ride (lot or garage), and residential, office, and retail developments. Exhibit 11-14 shows that 1,000 square foot of development could generate approximately five to seven daily riders if dedicated to park-and-ride, while 1,000 square feet of retail would generate slightly higher transit ridership. Per square foot, residential and office development are likely to generate significantly fewer riders than would an equivalent amount of park-and-ride. High-rise residential or office development could generate more ridership than park-and-ride space, if sufficient demand existed to justify high-rise development. There are of course many important reasons for providing TOD, other than ridership. TOD can improve the character of an area, make it more cohesive, and possibly attract economic Land Use Daily passenger trip ends per thousand square feeta Estimated proportion by line-haul transit Daily transit riders Office 12 – 14 0.20 2.4 – 2.8 Retail 47 – 56 0.15 7 – 8.4 Residential 4.4 – 7.2 0.20 0.9 – 1.4 Park-and-Ride 5.5 – 7.3 1.0 5.5 – 7.3 a Assumes vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Exhibit 11-14. Estimated weekday transit ridership for various land uses. Use Vehicle trip ends/day/1,000 square feet Passenger trip ends/day/1,000 square feet for various car occupancies Vehicle Occupancy 1.1 1.2 1.3 Office 11 12.1 13.2 14.3 Retail 43 47.3 51.6 55.9 Residential 4 – 6 4.4 – 6.6 4.8 – 7.2 5.2 – 7.8 Park-and- Ride 5 – 6.6 5.5 – 7.3 6 – 7.9 6.5 – 8.6 Source: ITE trip generation data for office, retail, residential. Park-and-Ride: 2.5-to-3.5 spaces/1,000 square feet times 2 trips per space Exhibit 11-13. Vehicle and passenger trip ends per day per thousand square feet of ground area.

TOD and Station Access 127 development to an area. But it, too, will require some parking, and it generally should not be viewed as a replacement of needed parking space. As described here, transit agencies must decide how to use the land around their stations. The trade-offs between parking and development are complicated and largely depend on external factors, such as parking demand and the development market. Still, transit agencies can evaluate opportunities in terms of costs and ridership. Exhibit 11-15 illustrates the ridership potential of parking and development opportunities for a hypothetical one-acre site. Exhibit 11-15. Example development options for 1-acre site adjacent to transit station. Development type a Size Cost per rider (2010 dollars) b Potential daily ridership Parking c Surface lot 144 spaces $191.01 164 riders 2-level garage 287 spaces $1,038.57 328 riders 4-level garage 575 spaces $1,294.18 655 riders 2-level underground garage 287 spaces $1,805.41 328 riders Residentiald 0.5 FARg 22 housing units $ - 22 riders 1.0 FAR 44 housing units $ - 52 riders 2.0 FAR 87 housing units $ - 105 riders 3.0 FAR 131 housing units $ - 196 riders 4.0 FAR 174 housing units $ - 261 riders 5.0 FAR 218 housing units $ - 327 riders Officee 0.5 FAR 65 employees $ - 20 riders 1.0 FAR 131 employees $ - 39 riders 2.0 FAR 261 employees $ - 78 riders 3.0 FAR 392 employees $ - 118 riders 4.0 FAR 523 employees $ - 157 riders 5.0 FAR 653 employees $ - 196 riders Retail f 0.5 FAR 21.8 ksf $ - 109 riders 1.0 FAR 43.6 ksf $ - 218 riders 2.0 FAR 87.1 ksf $ - 436 riders Notes: a Assumes sufficient market demand for all parking and development types. b Parking costs assume $3,500 per space for a surface lot, $20,000 per space for a garage, and $35,000 per space for underground. c Parking calculations assume 350 square feet per parking stall, 1 vehicle parked per day, with 1.2 vehicle occupancy, and 2 boardings per rider. d Residential calculations assume 1,000 square feet per unit, 10 trips per day per unit, and a 10-15% transit capture (increasing with density). e Office calculations assume 3 workers per 1,000 square feet, 2 trips per day per worker, and a 15% transit capture. f Retail calculations assume 50 daily trips per 1,000 square feet and a 10% transit capture. g FAR = Floor Area Ratio Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Peter Martin

128 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Assuming a one-acre site adjacent to a high-capacity transit station, how might a transit agency plan for station access? In general, parking structures provide a high-ridership potential, assuming sufficient parking demand exists. A four-level parking garage can yield 650 daily transit riders. On the other hand, a 10-story residential development (assumed Floor Area Ratio of 5.0) on the same site might provide 350 daily riders. From a transit agency perspective, the four-story parking garage would cost over $14 million dollars (or nearly $1,300 per rider), whereas the development poses no significant cost to the agency if it can be funded through private sources. In fact, if the agency owns the land in the station area, it can potentially appreciate income related to the ground rent. The spreadsheet tool provided as Appendix C allows users to test similar hypothetical scenarios with additional options for refinement. Implications and Directions The following implications relating to development adjacent to rapid transit stations emerge from the preceding discussion: 1. Land development has followed many rapid transit lines over the years. It should be encouraged along existing and proposed lines—especially around stations. One possibility is to establish rapid transit corridor overlay zones. 2. Efforts should focus on the city center and other major activity concentrations. It is important to guide land development in undeveloped areas in advance of rapid transit operation. Stations with strong back-up residential populations are also good candidates for TOD. 3. The types and sizes of TOD should recognize the market opportunities (and constraints) of specific station areas. Developments around stations range from ancillary convenience activities to the CBD. 4. Land developments around stations can provide important benefits in terms of community integration and design. They should provide good access between nearby residential and commercial development and stations. 5. TOD is an important complement to rapid transit stations. Developing TOD can improve the community tax base, facilitate walkability, and offer convenience to both transit patrons and motorists. 6. The types of TOD will depend upon location, land availability and costs, and market potentials. These types include: (1) convenience activities that are located within the station complex; (2) adjacent commercial, office, or residential developments, or a combination; (3) adjacent or nearby major activity centers; and (4) housing. 7. In many cases, both TOD and park-and-ride can be provided in the station environs. For example, many rapid transit stations are located at cross streets. This results in four quadrants around the station. TOD can be provided in some quadrants; park-and-ride in others. 8. The emphasis on TOD versus park-and-ride depends on: (1) where the station is or will be located; (2) the character of the surrounding areas; and (3) the market potentials of planned developments. Where stations are located in built-up areas and where policy favors TOD, auto access should be limited to passenger drop-off and pick-up. 9. Where buses and pedestrians are the main means of station access, TOD is usually more desirable than large park-and-ride facilities. Location, type of development, and market potentials are important. 10. The rapid transit ridership effects of TOD vary. They are significant in the city center, and other activity concentrations. However, not all TODs have significant ridership impacts. Connectivity, rapid transit service efficiency, availability of free parking for drivers, and the development market all figure into its success.

TOD and Station Access 129 11. There are many situations where the station environs can provide both TOD and the necessary transit parking space. In these cases more, rather than less, parking will be required. This situation could also result in increased rapid transit ridership. 12. Pedestrian-friendly designs should minimize walking distances to stations from adjacent TODs (see Exhibit 11-16). In sum, TOD should be viewed as a complement to station parking to the maximum extent possible. The eight-step planning process described in Chapter 2 provides a framework for establishing an appropriate balance between TOD and park-and-ride needs. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11-16. Direct connection from station to development (Ottawa, Ontario).

Next: References »
Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations is intended to aid in the planning, developing, and improving of access to high capacity commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry stations. The report includes guidelines for arranging and integrating various station design elements.

The print version of TCRP Report 153 is accompanied by a CD-ROM that includes a station access planning spreadsheet tool that allows trade-off analyses among the various access modes--automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-oriented development--for different station types. The appendices to TCRP Report 153 are also available on the CD-ROM.

The items contained in the CD-ROM are also available for download below.

In 2009 TRB released TCRP Web-Only Document 44: Literature Review for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations, which describes the results of the literature review associated with the project that developed TCRP Report 153.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!