Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Guidebook on Planning and Managing Park-and-Ride (2017)

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.

113 C h a p t e r 1 0 Purpose of This Chapter Land that is dedicated to park-and-ride use may present transit agencies with the opportunity to incorporate additional uses and generate enhanced return on the initial facility investment. TOD is a method of developing or redeveloping park-and-ride facilities in order to maximize the use of the land and complement park-and-ride transit service by enhancing station locations with other uses, such as residential, retail, and office space. These enhancements contribute to the property’s value and can increase ridership by increasing the number of trip generators in one location. While transit agencies may implement TODs independently, transit agencies typi- cally partner with developers and investors (through joint-development agreements and other contracting mechanisms) to implement TODs. This chapter discusses: • How transit agencies may see a return on investment in park-and-ride with TOD. • How TOD integrates transit parking and non-transit uses. • How a transit agency might participate in TOD/joint development. • How the TOD proposal process typically works. Transit-Oriented Development P h ot og ra ph c ou rt es y of M on tg om er y C ou n ty P la n n in g C om m is si on .

114 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Return on Investment TOD can increase a transit agency’s return on investment (ROI) by diversifying the use of land typically devoted to a single use (parking) and creating opportunities for external investment. Additionally, TOD may increase ridership due to the proximity of new trip generators (housing, retail, and commercial). This section outlines the potential for generating/increasing ROI by diversifying the use of land dedicated to park-and-ride facilities through TOD, documents examples from the case studies, and reviews strategies for assessing ROI. ROI Potential Investment in TOD can produce two types of returns: • Financial (new revenue sources and improved land value). • Ridership (more riders on transit due to proximity and ease of use). Financial Returns and Revenue Generation TOD presents opportunities for transit agencies to use land in ways that can generate non- transit revenues, such as retail leasing and residential development, and can increase the value of the property simultaneously by creating a desirable destination. The case study transit agencies reported the following experiences: • BART exists in an area with high demand for transit service that results in high demand for residences in walkable areas near transit. Homes and offices near BART stations now sell and rent at a premium compared to locations farther from transit, and the land adjacent to BART stations is becoming increasingly valuable as a revenue source for the transit agency. • DART’s TOD program seeks to recover costs by using underutilized parking spaces to gener- ate revenue through development. DART encourages TOD proposals throughout the transit agency’s service area and reviews all park-and-ride facilities regularly to assess the market potential of the location for development and revenue recovery/generation. During this regu- lar review, DART assesses all facilities and ranks them for market potential (i.e., which loca- tions could return the greatest revenue as a result of development/sale). • Denver RTD recently became the beneficiary of a state law that allows private development at or near its transit stations and allows the developer of such facilities to charge for parking. In 2013, the Colorado Legislature enacted legislation that allows public and private entities to build, lease, own, and operate parking facilities at or near Denver RTD transit stations. According to the law, project funds saved from not building a parking facility and any money received from contracts with the entities must be applied to construction of future Denver RTD FasTracks projects. Allowing developers to charge for parking enhances the financial viability of TOD projects in the Denver region. • King County Metro’s property management staff takes the lead on TOD activities associ- ated with King County Metro facilities. An informal process is used to assess whether a facil- ity should be considered for redevelopment. Considerations include the value of the land, the potential for increasing ridership through development, density in the surrounding area, community goals, service expansion, and business climate. Land with a value of $40 per square foot or more is a benchmark for considering redevelopment. A real estate consultant develops land value estimates and helps identify park-and-ride facilities that would be appropriate for redevelopment. • LA Metro contributes land or funds to TOD projects in exchange for a share of future project revenue and parking easements. TOD can increase a transit agency’s ROI by diversifying the use of land typically devoted to a single use (parking) and creating opportunities for external investment.

transit-Oriented Development 115 • The Port Authority of Allegheny County collects yearly rental revenue from TOD projects and includes periodic rent escalators to ensure that revenue generation keeps pace with infla- tion. Because the Port Authority of Allegheny County leases the land used for TOD, when the lease period expires and the land reverts to the transit agency’s ownership, the transit agency benefits from increased land value. Additionally, the transit agency has realized maintenance and capital cost savings from TODs when the developer operates the facility. • UTA has forecasted that its TOD investment returns will be approximately 20 percent. TOD also improves UTA’s relationships with municipalities because it helps transition the agency’s tax-exempt property back into private ownership, increasing the municipality’s tax base, adding jobs, and promoting economic development. • WMATA views TOD and joint development primarily through a financial lens and pursues such developments in an effort to generate revenue for the system. In parts of WMATA’s service area where land values are high, there has been little difficulty completing projects. Additionally, high-value areas help justify building parking structures large enough to satisfy both WMATA’s and the developer’s parking needs. Ridership Impacts Often, transit agencies create park-and-ride facilities to help increase transit ridership through improved access. Similarly, TOD can increase transit ridership because it improves access to transit services and acts as a trip generator—people travel to and from TODs to access housing, jobs, goods, and services. However, TOD does not guarantee increased ridership. To have posi- tive ridership impacts, TODs must be placed strategically, such as within existing high-volume corridors, and consist of desirable destinations for transit trips. Case study examples of increases in ridership attributable to TOD include the following: • Calgary Transit analyzed the relationship between adjacent development and levels of transit ridership. The 10 light-rail stations with highest ridership have parking for only 7 percent of the customers boarding at these stations. Calgary Transit’s TOD policy places emphasis on developing walkable areas close to transit stations, creating a comfortable pedestrian environment (City of Calgary 2005). Through its transit-supportive land uses, Calgary TOD increases density, and pedestrian design provides active mobility options and reduces automobile trips through increased transit ridership and the potential for decreased vehicle ownership. • DART has seen evidence that development can increase transit ridership. For example, Victory Station has no parking but is located near many new residential developments. In 2016, rider- ship at Victory was up 70 percent compared to 2015—an increase that appears to be in part a result of the nearby residential development. • Port Authority of Allegheny County reports that TODs have resulted in increased ridership. Strategies for Assessing ROI Assessing potential returns on TOD investment involves ridership forecasting, assessment of access improvements and congestion reductions, analysis of real estate markets, and calculation of possible contributions to the local/regional/state tax base (through additional jobs, increased property values, and general spending increases). Transit agencies may benefit from retaining real estate professionals to assist with strategizing for TOD and assessing markets and returns. ROI assessment relies on knowledge of the transit agency’s service area and ridership trends and data about the outcomes/impacts of previous transit projects and TODs. In an effort to provide easier access to data about other transit projects, TRB developed an online case study database to assist with assessing ROI related to transit projects: the Transportation

116 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Project Impact Case Studies System (http://transit.tpics.us/Default.aspx). This database consists of two tools: • A searchable database, which documents the impacts of past transit projects. • A tool to predict the impact of future transit projects. One of the case study transit agencies, DART, described methods of assessing ROI. DART assesses all facilities and ranks them for market potential (i.e., which locations have the potential to return the greatest revenue as a result of development/sale). Using this information, DART carefully plans investments by accounting for market forces and future economic development opportunities. DART also investigates potential economic development opportunities when considering whether to purchase land at a new transit facility. According to a University of North Texas study from January 2014, DART’s investment in transit infrastructure throughout its service area (over $5 billion when the report was published) was responsible for significant secondary investment worth over $7 billion (Clower and Weinstein 2009). Some of this regional investment was in TOD. Parking and Land Use If an agency determines that TOD is capable of generating increased ROI, local land use and parking ordinances should be reviewed to ensure that the proposed TOD meets the require- ments of the ordinances. Because TODs include additional land uses beyond transit, these developments are sometimes subject to additional public scrutiny and approval processes. This section reviews considerations related to parking and land use at TODs, and documents the experience of case study transit agencies. Parking for Transit and Other Uses Coordination of parking replacement (so that transit customers still have parking access) and development of parking minimums for transit and other TOD facility uses are a common theme of TOD negotiations. Converting park-and-ride facilities to TOD could result in lost parking capacity for transit riders. Some transit agencies, such as TriMet, seek to reduce parking demand (and supply) with investment in TOD. However, other transit agencies, such as WMATA and King County Metro, require that TOD include parking replacement at a ratio of 1:1 to ensure that transit riders who choose to drive have that option. Typically, to ensure that the majority of available land at a surface park-and-ride is developable, TODs implement structured parking to achieve parking replacement goals. Local government regulations introduce additional parking challenges when they require spe- cific amounts of parking according to land use. For example, residential parking requirements may state that a developer must provide two off-street parking spaces for each residential unit, even though these spaces may not be in use during the hours that park-and-ride activity occurs. In other cases, local governments may restrict park-and-ride within the urban core: • TriMet has an informal agreement with the City of Portland that no park-and-ride lots will be within approximately 5 miles of the city center. • Sound Transit and King County Metro may not build any new park-and-ride facilities within the city of Seattle. The Seattle suburb of Bellevue does not allow any parking facilities with more than 50 spaces. Additionally, King County Metro’s TOD projects typically require developers to replace transit park-and-ride spaces on a one-to-one basis.

transit-Oriented Development 117 Coordination of TOD with Local Governments Regulations that govern land use may affect TOD. For example, commercial land use is typically not allowed in residential areas. How- ever, by nature/definition, TOD requires multiple land use typologies. Therefore, coordination between transit agencies, local governments, and stakeholders is critical to the success of TOD because these devel- opments sometimes require land use variances and other accommoda- tions (e.g., tax-increment financing) in order to flourish. Case Studies To streamline implementation of TODs and to complement regional planning goals, some case study transit agencies work with local, regional, and statewide decision makers to facilitate TODs, pursue innovative financing, construct affordable housing, and coordinate other com- munity improvements. These transit agencies reported the following experiences: • Calgary Transit is a department within the City of Calgary. Therefore, TOD coordination is straightforward. Because of the city’s coordination with transit, developers in Calgary have two sources for additional TOD guidance: Transit Oriented Development Best Practices Hand- book (City of Calgary 2004) and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Guidelines (City of Calgary 2005). • CTA partnered with the City of Chicago to create a transit-friendly development guide to encourage development at CTA rail stations (CTA and the City of Chicago 2009). This guide classifies all CTA stations, describes appropriate development opportunities for each, and provides a template for redeveloping these properties while maintaining the required level of parking for park-and-ride customers. • NJ TRANSIT coordinates with the state department of transportation to facilitate TODs under a program called the Transit Village Initiative. This program began in 1999 as a way to encourage smart growth development, and it “creates incentives for municipalities to redevelop or revitalize the areas around transit stations using the design standards of transit- oriented development” (State of New Jersey Department of Transportation 2014a). In May 2016, New Jersey had 32 designated transit villages (State of New Jersey Department of Trans- portation 2014b). • PSRC (the MPO for the Seattle region) published The Growing Transit Communities Strategy: A Transit Corridor Action Agenda for the Central Puget Sound Region in 2013. The oversight committee for this effort included counties, cities, transit agencies, and stakeholders through- out Central Puget Sound. A toolkit of strategies and actions provides a regional approach to advancing a TOD. Each strategy includes recommended actions for each level of government, including transit agencies (PSRC 2013). The Washington Legislature passed legislation in 2015 that requires Sound Transit to contribute at least $4 million per year for 5 years to a TOD affordable housing development fund. The legislation also requires Sound Transit to dispose of 80 percent of all excess property to private developers for affordable housing at or within a half mile of the transit station. The legislation took effect immediately and applies to all future projects, projects in the planning phase, and projects currently under construction. • TriMet coordinates closely with Portland’s MPO, Metro, to implement TOD. In Portland, the operating context for park-and-ride activities is influenced by the region’s focus on the transportation/land use connection and use of development patterns to reduce reliance on the automobile. Metro develops policies and regulations and controls several funding sources that it directs to support its policies. Metro’s High Capacity Transit System Expan- sion Policy guides prioritization of corridors for expansion of the regional rail system. This Coordination between transit agencies, local governments, and stakeholders is critical to the success of a TOD because these developments sometimes require land use variances and other accommodations.

118 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities policy explicitly provides additional credit to municipalities that proactively work to achieve Metro goals, including zoning for TOD and nonmotorized transportation improvements. • UTA works with local jurisdictions to obtain tax-increment financing to convert surface parking to structured parking/TOD. These jurisdictions may also help UTA find grant money to achieve the same result. UTA works with the local jurisdictions to get the necessary zoning for the site, and the jurisdictions typically streamline the planning and entitlement processes. Additional Information The following sources provide additional information about land use and TODs: • TCRP Legal Research Digest 36: Transit-Oriented and Joint Development: Case Studies and Legal Issues: http://nap.edu/14588. • TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Chapter 15, Land Use and Site Design: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: http://online pubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c15.pdf. • TCRP Report 182: Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_182.pdf. • TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel: http://www.tcrponline.org/ PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_128.pdf. TOD/Joint-Development Participation After determining that TOD is financially viable and learning about the requirements related to land use and non-transit parking, transit agencies should assess the potential to collaborate on TOD implementation. Efforts to develop transit-agency–owned properties for uses other than transit are more likely to succeed if the transit agency coordinates and participates with property developers and investors. This section discusses strengths and challenges associated with partnering to implement TOD. Strengths of TOD Partnerships TOD can reduce a transit agency’s share of the cost to provide parking for transit. Addi- tionally, TOD can reduce the amount of responsibility and development expertise that transit agencies need to have in-house and can present opportunities to leverage additional financing options and generate additional revenue. This section briefly describes the main strengths of TOD partnerships. Shared or Shifted Costs The non-transit uses that are included in TOD—residential, retail, and commercial—all require parking facilities. By coordinating with property developers to implement TODs, tran- sit agencies can share or shift the costs of construction and mainte- nance associated with providing parking for transit customers. TOD partnerships can be structured so that the transit agency contributes some funds or only the real estate and other nonfinancial contributions. TOD agreements that require transit agencies to con- tribute funds are considered cost-sharing agreements. TOD agreements that do not require the transit agency to contribute funds can shift the upfront cost of development to the property developer because that partner becomes solely responsible for providing funding. By coordinating with property developers to implement TODs, transit agencies can share or shift the costs of construction and maintenance associated with providing parking for transit customers.

transit-Oriented Development 119 Expertise and Economy of Scale Transit agencies are experts at providing transportation service. Because of this focus, most transit agencies are not experts in property development and, even if a transit agency has staff dedicated to managing a real estate portfolio, the agency may not have the capacity to execute large-scale property development. TOD partnerships tap into private-sector expertise and econ- omies of scale, allowing transit agencies to outsource development-related activities. Shifted Responsibilities Agreements to implement TOD shift the responsibilities for managing design, construction, and day-to-day operations of the finished development to private-sector partners. As a result, a transit agency can focus on ensuring that the goals of a TOD project are complementary to the agency’s mission and that developers complete work according to predefined timelines and budgets. Financing Options Partnerships with private-sector property developers allow transit agencies to take advantage of rapid access to capital funds/debt instruments associated with property development instead of relying on the typical pay-as-you-go or grant-funded methods often used by public entities. Access to additional financing options allows TOD to occur more quickly, which may allow revenue-generating activities at the TOD to begin sooner, and allows increased autonomy (when compared to public funding sources) to financing recipients. Revenue Generation Some TOD agreements include a revenue-sharing element that requires the property devel- oper to remit a specific percentage of future revenues to the transit agency in exchange for the right to develop and operate the facility. Therefore, some TODs can generate revenue for the transit agency. Additionally, because TODs bring new residents and businesses to an area, such development can increase general revenue in the area around the TOD. Challenges of TOD Partnerships TOD partnerships may face challenges due to timing, site selection and analysis, the negotiation process, and parking availability. This section discusses these challenges. Timing Private-sector timelines typically do not mesh with public-sector timelines. Heightened public scrutiny associated with public agency financial decisions can slow the development process when compared to property developers’ time-to-market expectations. Additionally, transit agency constituents want the agency to be accountable and avoid risky transactions. To address these concerns, transit agencies must provide additional community benefits and review all plans through public engagement processes, which may frustrate developers. Site Selection and Analysis Site selection and analyses, such as of market demand for transit service, housing, and/or commercial real estate, are critical to the success of a TOD because property developers will not be interested in TOD opportunities that do not provide a positive return on investment. Negotiation and Compromise Contracts require negotiation and compromise, which, if not managed properly, could result in negative outcomes. TOD agreements rely on contracts that identify each contributing party’s

120 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities interests and obligations as well as revenue splits and responsibility for financing. Well-designed contracts enable the creation of TODs that benefit transit agencies, protect public interests, and allow private partners to generate a profit. Transit agencies must ensure that the deal is good for them and for the public. Parking Availability for Transit Use TODs incorporate multiple uses in a single site or in adjacent sites. Because of the inclusion of non-transit uses, when negotiating a TOD agreement, transit agencies should be careful to ensure that parking for transit is provided at a level commensurate with ridership demand. As with shared-use parking facilities, transit agencies could introduce transit-specific parking that transitions to parking for all TOD users outside of peak transit times. TOD Proposal Processes As with most public expenditures, TODs require proposals from potential partners and a decision/selection process that is unbiased. This section documents the types of proposal pro- cesses associated with TODs (transit agency initiated/requested and unsolicited) and strategies for managing each. Transit Agency Requests for Proposals Transit agencies that are preparing to invest in capital improvements typically develop a con- cept that includes operational plans, site selection, facility parameters, intended uses, funding sources and availability, and other details, and then release that concept plan in a formal request for proposals. Because this is a standard process among transit agencies and is not unique for TOD, this guidebook does not discuss transit agency requests for proposals in detail. The following docu- mentation outlines best practices related to procurement and contracting processes, policies, and legislation: • Federal Transit Administration’s Best Practices Procurement Manual: https://www.transit.dot. gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/BPPM_fulltext_0.pdf. • FTA’s Third-Party Procurement FAQs: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/procurement/ third-party-procurement/third-party-procurement-faqs. • FTA’s Online Tools and Resources: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/procurement/ online-tools-resources. Unsolicited Proposals Because TOD can be financially lucrative for the private sector, developers and other inter- ested parties have significant motivation to seek out opportunities to engage transit agencies in TOD. Therefore, transit agencies sometimes receive unsolicited proposals for TODs. Unsolicited proposals are proposals that are submitted independent of a request for proposals, typically in cases where a developer identifies an opportunity near a transit facility (either on private or transit agency land). Some transit agencies, such as LA Metro, have developed policies specific to unsolicited proposals. Federal Guidance The FTA provides guidance related to contracting for services to all funding recipients in Circular 4220.1F: Third Party Contracting Guidance. This circular defines unsolicited proposals Because of the inclusion of non- transit uses, when negotiating a TOD agreement, transit agencies should be careful to ensure that parking for transit is provided at a level commensurate with ridership demand.

transit-Oriented Development 121 and describes how transit agencies that receive federal funding should handle such proposals (FTA 2013b). The FTA’s definition of an unsolicited proposal is “a proposal that is: (1) innova- tive and unique; and (2) independently originated and developed by the offeror” (FTA 2013b). Circular 4220.1F provides guidance on how a transit agency should handle unsolicited proposals as follows: A recipient may also enter into contracts based on an unsolicited proposal . . . when authorized by applicable state or local law or regulation. Receipt of an unsolicited proposal does not, by itself, justify contract award without providing for full and open competition. Unless the unsolicited proposal offers a proprietary concept that is essential to contract performance, FTA expects the recipient to seek com- petition. To satisfy the requirement for full and open competition, FTA expects the recipient to take the following actions before entering into a contract resulting from an unsolicited proposal: (1) Receipt. Publicize its receipt of the unsolicited proposal, (2) Adequate Description. Publicize an adequate description of the property or services offered without improperly disclosing proprietary information or disclosing the originality of thought or innovative- ness of the property or services sought, (3) Interest in the Property or Services. Publicize its interest in acquiring the property or services described in the proposal, (4) Adequate Opportunity to Compete. Provide an adequate opportunity for interested parties to comment or submit competing proposals, and (5) Contract Award Based on Proposals Received. Publicize its intention to award a contract based on the unsolicited proposal or another proposal submitted in response to the publication. If it is impossible to describe the property or services offered without revealing proprietary information or disclosing the originality of thought or innovativeness of the property or services sought, the recipient may make a sole source award to the offeror. A sole source award may not be based solely on the unique capability of the offeror to provide the specific property or services proposed (FTA 2013b). Policies and Practices to Manage Unsolicited Proposals Transit agencies may choose to accept unsolicited proposals or to only accept proposals that are submitted in response to a formal request from the transit agency. If a transit agency chooses to accept an unsolicited proposal, the agency must do so in accordance with the FTA’s guidance for such proposals. Among case study transit agencies, DART, King County Metro, LA Metro, and WMATA accept unsolicited proposals. The Port Author- ity of Allegheny County does not formally accept unsolicited proposals but uses the documents to generate ideas for sites that the transit agency could evaluate for inclusion in a formal proposal process. LA Metro has implemented specific policies for handling unsolicited proposals and uses a dedicated review process to assess each unsolicited proposal it receives. The transit agency describes its unsolicited proposal policy and process as follows: All Unsolicited Proposals shall be submitted to the Metro Vendor/Contract Management office, which will log the proposal and within three business days, officially transfer it to the Office of Extraordinary Innovation (OEI) for evaluation of technical and/or financial merit. Joint Development Unsolicited Pro- posals will be transferred to the Joint Development Team. Metro receives and evaluates Unsolicited Proposals using a two-phased approach. . . . All Unsolicited Proposals, both in general and for Joint Development, will be evaluated using the two-phased approach. . . . In Phase One we evaluate Conceptual Proposals. Conceptual Proposals will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt, at which time a determination will be made as to whether to review additional and detailed infor- mation in Phase Two. If there is interest in a Conceptual Proposal, the proposer may be asked to submit a Detailed Proposal for evaluation in Phase Two. In the event that the project proceeds beyond Phase Two or otherwise involves a competitive procurement or sole source procurement, Metro’s procurement policies and procedures will apply. Metro may, at any time, choose not to proceed further with any Unsolicited Proposal (LA Metro 2016). If a transit agency chooses to accept an unsolicited proposal, the transit agency must do so in accordance with the FTA’s guidance for such proposals.

122 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Figure 19 presents a flowchart to describe LA Metro’s unsolicited proposal process. NJ TRANSIT frequently receives unsolicited proposals from developers to develop around the transit agency’s facilities. To handle the frequent proposals, NJ TRANSIT has set up an offi- cial process by which interested parties (including municipalities, state government agencies, businesses, and individuals) can submit requests for evaluation. After receiving proposals, NJ TRANSIT: Figure 19. LA Metro’s unsolicited proposal process flowchart. Source: LA Metro 2016.

transit-Oriented Development 123 • Performs an in-depth review—transit agency staff, including staff from the operations, plan- ning, and real estate divisions, review the property in question. • Carefully examines the operational demands of the property as well as current and projected parking demands and any planned service changes. • Ensures that proposed plans conform to local land use and planning directives. If the transit agency determines that the property in question is not required for the provision of transit service and can be repurposed for development, the agency proceeds with a formal process, involving the local municipality, to solicit proposals to develop the property. Summary TOD is intended to complement and be complemented by transit. As such, TOD can intro- duce higher and better uses for transit agency property and generate additional revenue for transit agencies, private developers, local governments, and other stakeholders. By helping to increase property values, TOD can generate business opportunities, increase spending (by including businesses and introducing new residents within a community), and bolster tax revenues. This chapter discusses the returns on investment (both financial and performance or rider ship ROI), considerations related to land use and parking regulations at TOD sites, strengths and challenges associated with partnering to implement TOD, and the TOD pro- posal process. As TOD practices mature and communities begin to transition away from SOV use, parking reductions are likely to become more common. Additional Information TCRP has published additional information about TOD: • TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf. • TCRP Research Results Digest 52: Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_52.pdf. • TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States. • TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Chapter 17 Transit Oriented Development. Additional TOD resources and information include: • Infrastructure Financing Options for Transit-Oriented Development: http://ctod.org/pdfs/ 20130122-TOD-infrastructure-financing-report.pdf. • National Resources and Technical Assistance for Transit-Oriented Development: https:// todresources.org/. • Strategic Package of Tools: Transit Oriented Development in Metropolitan Phoenix: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/phoenix-sgia-package-tools.pdf. • TOD Database: http://toddata.cnt.org/. • Overview: Transit Oriented Development Classification Tool: http://www.corridorsof opportunity.org/sites/default/files/TOD_ClassificationTool-ReconnAm_summary.pdf. • Performance-Based Transit-Oriented Development Typology Guidebook: http://ctod.org/portal/ node/2162.