The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 71-87

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 72... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Overview D-1 2.0 TOD Policies and Outcomes D-4 2.1 TOD as a Jurisdictional Priority ...................................................................................................... D-4 2.2 TOD-Friendly Zoning ...................................................................................................................... Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-1 SURVEY OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS 1.0 Introduction and Overview The research team for TCRP H-57: A Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies ("the Guide") undertook a targeted stakeholder outreach program. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-2 Table D-1: Summary of Local Government Jurisdictions Interviewed Jurisdiction Comments Interviewed (All dates 2019) Northeast Boston (MA) Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-3 • Two are multi-disciplinary city economic development/urban renewal/development finance agencies -- the Boston Planning & Development Agency ("BPDA") and Pittsburgh's Urban Redevelopment Authority ("URA") Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-4 Table D-2: Outline of Findings Section 2.0 TOD Policies and Outcomes 2.1 TOD as a Jurisdictional Priority (Questions 1a, 1b, 1f) 2.2 TOD-Friendly Zoning (Questions 1c, 1d) Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-5 With one exception, all jurisdictions stated that they have some type of official TOD Policy.63 Most but not all have adopted an overall, one-stop policy or strategy document, or a TOD section of their comprehensive or general plan.64 Certain features are shared by a number of municipal TOD policies or strategies: the use of a TOD Place Typology, and illustrative standards for the principal TOD ingredients of density, mixed uses, public realm design, and parking. At least three of the cities we interviewed -- Phoenix, San Diego, and San José -- have TOD policies organized around the framework of urban or transit villages. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-6 density envelope, mixed-use development, TOD-style urban form, and reduced parking; conforming projects can be permitted as of right, perhaps with mandatory design review applicable to all projects in high-visibility locations. Table D-3: Examples of Local Jurisdiction TOD Initiatives Jurisdiction TOD Policy, Program, or Strategy Link Atlanta Regional Commission Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-7 • Other respondents said that TOD projects (particularly high-profile ones) generally do need some type of discretionary review. Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-8 • Twelve jurisdictions described their transit agency counterparts as being actively engaged in JD, consisting of either a series of projects or a full JD program. These answers were consistent with those of the corresponding transit agencies and with the research team's own research on those agencies' JD activities. Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-9 Table D-4: Local Jurisdiction Role in Station Area Real Property Jurisdiction Example Boston Planning & Development Agency At least five high-visibility JD sites were created by combining MBTA and/or MassDOT property with BPDA/City property (North Station, South Station, Ruggles Station, Jackson Square, MassPike/Hynes Convention Air Rights) Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-10 in additional opportunities for land pooling or other ways of expanding the JD footprint through collaborating with other public owners.71 Of the local jurisdictions that answered Question 3 in the negative, several were California cities stating that prior to 2012, when the state's local Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved, they were in the land assembly and disposition business, including for purposes of TOD/JD. Since the dissolution, they no longer assemble land for development and, in many instances, have sold off parcels that had been acquired. Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-11 • a specific limit on surface parking within a quarter-mile of a station; • reductions associated with mixed-use development and affordable housing; • reduction below the nominal zoning floor through project-specific relief, often in tandem with a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") plan. Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-12 In sum, transit agencies are increasingly likely to find that local jurisdictions have adopted inclusionary housing requirements of broad applicability to which JD projects may be subject. On the other hand, transit agencies that adopt their own inclusionary standards for JD projects are likely, for both practical and policy reasons, to set their inclusionary targets above those of most local jurisdictions. Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-13 Table D-5: Types of Development Incentives Reported by Jurisdictions Type of Incentive Targeted, project-specific infrastructure grants, such as: • Massachusetts' MassWorks 76 • the Atlanta Regional Commission's Livable Centers Initiative ("LCI") Implementation Grants 77 Targeted, project-specific grants for infrastructure or building improvements, such as: • Hennepin County's TOD Program 78 • Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program ("RACP") Read the entire page →
From page 86... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-14 • Several value capture districts were used in support of joint development projects -- either directly or in the immediately surrounding infrastructure. These include projects in Denver; Carrollton, TX; Pittsburgh; Montgomery County; Quincy, MA, and Boston. Read the entire page →
From page 87... ... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-15 • concern about gentrification, displacement, and the sufficiency of affordable housing; • a general "NIMBY" reaction against height, density, and in some cases the introduction of affordable housing; • a more specific concern about traffic congestion and spillover parking; • a positive response to TOD based on its association with smart growth, sustainability, and greenhouse gas reduction. As to the overall success of the community outreach process, the overall tendency was to see it as challenging but generally successful, with some projects having to be modified in response to community concerns but most projects being managed to fruition. Read the entire page →

From page 72...

... Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Overview D-1 2.0 TOD Policies and Outcomes D-4 2.1 TOD as a Jurisdictional Priority ...................................................................................................... D-4 2.2 TOD-Friendly Zoning ......................................................................................................................