Statewide Transit- Oriented
Development Study
Factors for Success in California
FINAL REPORT
September 2002
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION
and HOUSING AGENCY
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Funding for this study was provided by
the California Department of Transportation,
State Planning and Research program
( 80% Federal Highway Administration
and 20% State transportation funds).
Disclaimer
The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and
advisory committees and not necessarily those of the California Department of
Transportation. The mention of commercial products, their source or their use in
connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an
actual or implied endorsement of such products.
Copyright Information
The text of this document and any images ( e. g., photos, graphics, figures, and tables)
that are specifically attributed ( in full, or in coordination with another group) to the
California Department of Transportation may be freely distributed or copied, so long as
full credit is provided.
However, this document also includes a number of copyrighted images ( e. g.,
photographs, illustrations, graphics, figures, and tables) that are not owned by the State
of California ( which are reprinted in this report with permission). Before using any of
these copyrighted items in another publication, it is necessary to obtain specific
permission from the attributed owners. The names of these copyright holders are
provided vertically next to each of these images. ( Note: the U. S. Copyright Office
provides “ Fair Use” guidelines on this subject.)
Cover images: Left- side photo by Parsons
Brinckerhoff and the California Department of
Transportation ( American Plaza, San Diego). Center
Illustration by Lennertz and Coyle Associates/ Seth
Harry ( Pleasant Hill TOD). Right- side photo by
Parsons Brinckerhoff ( Hollywood/ Highlands TOD).
Watermark is from an illustration by Lennertz and
Coyle Associates/ Seth Harry ( Pleasant Hill TOD).
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page i
Principal Authors
Terry Parker, M. A., AICP
Project Manager
California Department of Transportation,
Division of Mass Transportation
Mike McKeever
Parsons Brinckerhoff
( primary consultant)
Principal- in- Charge
GB Arrington
Project Manager for
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Janet Smith- Heimer
Managing Principal,
Bay Area Economics
( subconsultant)
Members of
Advisory Committees
( listed on the following pages)
Text Editors:
Daniel Mayer, Helen Childs
California Department of Transportation
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page ii
Project Staff:
California Department of Transportation
Brian Smith, Deputy Director,
Planning and Modal Programs
Division of Mass Transportation:
Thomas McDonnell, Chief, Division of Mass Transportation
David Cabrera, past Chief, Division of Mass Transportation
Jim Conant, Supervisor, Program Development Unit
Horacio Paras, Supervisor, Transportation Planning & Policy Unit
Terry Parker, AICP, MA, Statewide TOD Study Project Manager
Daniel Mayer, BA, Student Assistant and Chief Editor
Stuart Takeo Mori, MS, Associate Transportation Planner
Helen Childs, Retired Annuitant, Division of Mass Transportation
Consultant Team:
Parsons Brinckerhoff
GB Arrington, Project Manager
Mike McKeever Principal- in- Charge
John Boroski
Stephen Oringdulph
Scott Polzin
Sam Seskin
Sara Stein
Katherine Gray Still
Patrick Sweeney
Faulkner / Conrad Group
Topaz Faulkner
Bay Area Economics
Janet Smith- Heimer, Managing Principal
Ron Golem, Senior Associate
Justin Douglas, Analyst
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page iii
Members of the Policy Steering Committee
Bank of America
Christine Carr, Vice President,
Community Development Banking
Group
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
( BART)
Jeff Ordway, Manager of Property
Development
Business, Transportation, and
Housing Agency ( State of California)
Rick Vargas, Deputy Secretary
California Health and Human
Services Agency
Agnes Lee, Assistant Secretary for
Fiscal and Policy
California Transit Association
Joshua Shaw, Executive Director
Department of Transportation ( State)
Planning and Modal Programs:
Brian Smith, Deputy Director
Transportation Planning Program:
Joan Sollenberger, Program Manager
Housing and Community
Development Department ( HCD)
Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director,
Housing Policy Division
Federal Transit Administration
Ray Sukys, Director of Planning and
Program Development
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research
Terry Roberts, Director, State
Clearinghouse
League of California Cities
Dan Carrigg, Legislative Representative
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission ( S. F. Bay Area)
Therese McMillan, Deputy Director
for Policy
Metropolitan Transit Development
Board ( San Diego area)
Thomas Larwin, General Manager
Planning and Conservation League
Eddy Moore, Transportation Coordinator
Private Developers:
Brian Holloway, representative, Post
Properties
David Mogavero Principal, Mogavero,
Notestine Associates
Surface Transportation Policy Project
James Corless, Northern California
Director
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page iv
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee
Bank of America
Jim Mather, Vice President, Community
Development Corporation Regional
Manager
Bay Area Rapid Transit District ( BART)
Peter Albert, Manager, Station Area
Planning; and
Jeff Ordway, Manager, Property
Development
California Transit Association ( CTA)
Kristina Egan, Executive Director,
“ Odyssey 20/ 20”
State Department of Transportation
Community Planning Program:
Debbie Bell & Chris Ratekin
District # 11 ( San Diego):
Chris Schmidt
Mass Transportation Program:
Stuart Mori
Rail Program:
Lea Simpson
City of Hayward
Dyana Anderly, Planning Director,
Community Development Department
Housing and Community Development
Dept. ( State)
Rob Maus, Housing Policy Division
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority ( MTA)
Andrea Burnside, Transportation
Planning Manager, ‘ Rail, Busway,
Bikeway Planning and Joint
Development’ unit
Metropolitan Transportation Development
Board ( MTDB) –
Chris Kluth, Land Use Planner
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
( MTC) - S. F. Bay Area
Karen Frick, Program manager,
“ Transportation for Livable
Communities” grant program
Non- Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
Doug Shoemaker, Chair, Sustainable
Development Working Group
Post Properties
Brian Holloway, Sacramento area
representative
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority ( VTA)
Grieg Asher, TOD Program Manager
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District
Dave Mitchell, Manager, Transportation
and Land Use Program
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page v
Abstract
This study provides a state- of- the- practice review of transit- oriented development ( TOD)
with an emphasis on recent experience in California. The main objective of this study is to
define strategies that the State of California could undertake to encourage the broader
implementation of TOD near major transit stations: bus, rail, and ferry. An executive
summary and Technical Appendix are also available. These documents can be accessed
via the California Department of Transportation’s Division of Mass Transportation website,
at: http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ MassTrans/ tod. htm
First, the report offers a definition of TOD, and an overview of the components of
successful TODs. It then summarizes a literature review of the benefits of TOD, as well
as its potential effects on travel and transit use. In the second section, the report provides
an overview of the current status of implementation of TOD both in the United States and
more specifically within California, including region- by- region reviews. Twelve “ profiles” of
TODs within the state are also provided.
Based on a review of the status of TOD implementation in America and California, the
report: summarizes major barriers to TOD implementation; offers “ lessons learned”;
discusses key issues; and identifies strategies that could help overcome barriers. Recent
market trends and the development feasibility of TOD in California are assessed, based in
part on panel discussions held with TOD developers in northern and southern California.
An overview of challenges in financing TOD, as well as various public and private funding
sources that are potentially available to finance and fund TODs is also provided.
Finally, the report concludes with recommendations for fourteen strategies that the State
of California could undertake to facilitate the broader implementation of TOD at local and
regional levels. A number of possible State strategies to overcome TOD barriers are
presented and described in four major categories: State policies and practices; planning
and zoning; finance and implementation; and information dissemination and research.
There is also a separate volume of Technical Appendices, which provides more detailed
information than is available in the Report volume, including: TOD case studies in the
U. S. and within California; the results of two panel discussions with TOD developers;
descriptions of potential funding sources for TOD; terms and definitions used in this
report; a bibliography and list of related website; and other relevant information.
In addition to the Report and Appendix, the project team has also produced a stand- alone
report assessing parking issues in relation to TOD entitled: “ Parking and TOD:
Challenges and Opportunities.” This report can be obtained by contacting the California
Department of Transportation’s Division of Mass Transportation, or via the website above.
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page vii
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1
The Challenges............................................................................................................... 1
Overview of the Study................................................................................................... 2
What is Transit- Oriented Development ( TOD)? ..................................................... 2
Trends and Demand for TOD...................................................................................... 3
Federal Transit Agency Rail Funding Criteria........................................................ 4
What is the status of TOD in California? ................................................................. 4
What are the Benefits of TOD?................................................................................... 5
Challenges for Implementing TOD ............................................................................ 6
What can the State do to encourage TOD Implementation?.............................. 7
Section 1: Definition and Benefits of Transit- Oriented
Development.......................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT? 11
I. Introduction................................................................................................................ 11
Evolution of the Concept of TOD.................................................................... 11
II. Definitions of TOD................................................................................................... 12
III. Components of Successful Transit- Oriented Development...................... 15
TOD Design Components............................................................................... 15
TOD or TAD: Transit- Oriented or Transit- Adjacent Development?................ 16
IV. TOD: Policy Description or Development Model? ...................................... 17
V. Performance Criteria for TOD............................................................................. 17
VI. Federal Rail Transit Funding Criteria .............................................................. 18
VII. TOD Evaluation Checklist.................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 2: WHAT ARE THE MAJOR BENEFITS OF TOD?.... 22
I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 22
II. Benefits of Transit- Oriented Development: An Overview ............................ 23
Quality of Life.................................................................................................. 23
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page viii
Enhanced Mobility .......................................................................................... 23
The Value of Choice ....................................................................................... 25
Enhanced Sense of Community ..................................................................... 26
“ 24- Hour” Places ............................................................................................ 27
III. Reduced infrastructure capital and operating costs .................................... 27
IV. Social Benefits....................................................................................................... 29
Affordable Housing ......................................................................................... 30
Promoting Jobs/ Housing Balance................................................................... 31
Reducing Urban Decline................................................................................. 32
V. Economic Development ....................................................................................... 33
TOD as a Part of a Regional Development Framework.................................. 33
Reduced Congestion- Related Business Costs............................................... 34
The Market Value of Walkability / Transit Accessibility................................... 35
Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................ 36
VI. Enhanced Safety ................................................................................................... 36
Public Safety................................................................................................... 37
Safer Pedestrian & Bicycle Travel .................................................................. 37
Reduced Aggressive Driving .......................................................................... 39
VII. Environmental Benefits ..................................................................................... 39
Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 39
Reduced Energy Consumption....................................................................... 41
Reduced ‘ Greenhouse Gas’ Emission Rates.................................................. 42
VIII. Conservation of Resource Lands .................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3: HOW DOES TOD AFFECT TRAVEL AND TRANSIT
USE?................................................................................................ 46
I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 46
Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................ 46
II. Overview of Available Information .................................................................... 47
The Density Connection ................................................................................. 48
Other Factors.................................................................................................. 50
III. The Regional Picture ............................................................................................. 50
Portland as an example.................................................................................. 51
The Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality ( LUTRAQ) Study.................... 52
Summary – Regional Level............................................................................. 55
IV. TOD at the Community Level.............................................................................. 55
Summary – Community Level......................................................................... 59
V. Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 59
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page ix
Section 2: The Status of Implementation ............................ 60
CHAPTER 4: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF TRANSIT- ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA?...................................................... 61
I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 61
A TOD “ Renaissance”..................................................................................... 61
Key Ingredients for Success ........................................................................... 62
II. Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................... 63
Early Action is Essential for Successful TOD ................................................. 63
‘ Value Capture’ ............................................................................................... 63
III. The Next Generation of TODs............................................................................ 64
Let the Market Decide?................................................................................... 66
Transit System Parking or TOD?.................................................................... 67
IV. Transit ‘ Joint Development’............................................................................... 67
More ‘ Joint Development’ than TOD............................................................... 69
V. Noteworthy New TODs ......................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 5: HOW IS TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
BEING IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA?..................................... 73
I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 73
II. Overall Observations............................................................................................. 74
TOD Activity is Widespread............................................................................ 74
Variety in TOD Implementation....................................................................... 74
Roles of local governments and transit agencies in TOD ............................... 75
III. Bus and Rail TODs: An Overview..................................................................... 76
Differences With Technology?........................................................................ 77
Bus Rapid Transit ........................................................................................... 77
Other Considerations...................................................................................... 78
Conclusion – Bus and Rail TOD..................................................................... 79
IV. Regional TOD ‘ Snapshots’ ................................................................................ 79
Sacramento Area.......................................................................................................... 80
The San Francisco Bay Area .................................................................................... 81
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority................................................... 82
Caltrain ........................................................................................................... 83
Bay Area Rapid Transit District ( BART).......................................................... 83
San Francisco ‘ Muni’ ...................................................................................... 85
Southern California ..................................................................................................... 86
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page x
San Diego....................................................................................................................... 87
V. California TOD Profiles ................................................................................ 89
Sacramento Area: ........................................................................................................ 89
1. Aspen Neighborhood, West Davis............................................................. 89
San Francisco Bay Area: ........................................................................................... 91
2. EmeryStation, Emeryville........................................................................... 91
3. Fruitvale Transit Village, Oakland.............................................................. 93
4. Moffett Park, Sunnyvale............................................................................. 95
5. Ohlone- Chynoweth, San Jose ................................................................... 96
6. Pleasant Hill Bart Station Area .................................................................. 99
Southern California: .................................................................................................. 101
7. Hollywood/ Highland, Los Angeles ........................................................... 101
8. Pacific Court, Long Beach ....................................................................... 103
9. ‘ NoHo’ ( North Hollywood) Arts District, Los Angeles ............................... 105
San Diego:.................................................................................................................... 107
10. American Plaza, San Diego................................................................... 107
11. Rio Vista West, San Diego .................................................................... 109
12. Uptown District, San Diego.................................................................... 111
Section 3: Implementation Opportunities and
Challenges............................................................................................. 113
CHAPTER 6: WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPING TOD IN CALIFORNIA?.......... 114
I. Overview.................................................................................................................. 114
II. Market Performance for Cities with Rail Transit ........................................... 115
Rent Premiums for TOD ............................................................................... 115
III. Market Trends and TOD..................................................................................... 115
Housing and Employment Trends ................................................................ 116
Commute Times, Traffic Congestion, and Urban Housing Preferences ....... 117
IV. Challenges to TOD Development Feasibility................................................ 118
Increased Costs for Infrastructure ................................................................ 121
Land Assembly ............................................................................................. 121
Financial Challenges .................................................................................... 121
Lack of Good Data Regarding Benefits of TOD............................................ 122
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page xi
CHAPTER 7: WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF FINANCING
TOD, AND WHAT FUNDING SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE?...... 123
I. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 123
II. Funding Challenges.............................................................................................. 124
Perceived Risk of Mixed- Use Developments................................................ 124
Appraisal Difficulties ..................................................................................... 124
Central City Concerns .................................................................................... 125
Community Reinvestment Act ...................................................................... 125
Overcoming Barriers..................................................................................... 126
III. Multiple Funding Sources .................................................................................. 126
IV. “ Good Fits” for TOD Funding.......................................................................... 130
1) Transportation Funds for TOD........................................................................... 130
-- Federal Programs ..................................................................................... 130
– State Programs.......................................................................................... 132
– Regional Programs.................................................................................... 133
2) Housing and Community Development Programs....................................... 134
– Federal Programs...................................................................................... 134
- State Programs .......................................................................................... 136
3) Environmental Funds for TOD........................................................................... 138
V. Conclusion: Making it Work............................................................................... 139
Section 4: Facilitating the Broader Implementation of
Transit- Oriented Development ................................................ 140
CHAPTER 8 - WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING
TOD, AND WHAT COULD BE DONE TO OVERCOME THEM?.. 141
I. Introduction............................................................................................................. 141
II. TOD Implementation Issues in California...................................................... 141
Financial Challenges .................................................................................... 141
Infrastructure Costs ...................................................................................... 142
Fiscalization of Land Use.............................................................................. 142
Obtaining Development Entitlements ........................................................... 142
Local Concerns about Traffic........................................................................ 143
Need for Better Data..................................................................................... 143
Parking Challenges ...................................................................................... 144
Land Assembly ............................................................................................. 144
Disposition of Public Land ............................................................................ 144
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study –
Factors for Success in California
Page xii
Use of Tax- increment Financing................................................................... 145
Lack of TOD Expertise and Coordination ..................................................... 145
Need for Better Information .......................................................................... 145
III. Other States’ TOD Strategies ............................................................................ 146
Encourage TOD Planning............................................................................. 146
Abatement of Taxes ..................................................................................... 146
Transit ‘ Joint Development’ .......................................................................... 147
Direct Participation ....................................................................................... 147
Use of Government Land.............................................................................. 148
CHAPTER 9: WHAT CAN THE STATE DO TO ENCOURAGE TOD
IMPLEMENTATION IN CALIFORNIA? ......................................... 149
I. Introduction............................................................................................................. 149
II. Overview of State TOD Implementation Strategies...................................... 150
Strategy Area # 1: State Policies and Practices ........................................... 151
Strategy Area # 2: State Funding for Planning and Implementation ............. 151
III. Recommended State TOD Implementation Strategies List ..................... 153
IV. Descriptions of State TOD Implementation Strategies ......... 156
STRATEGY 1A - Improved coordination of local and regional land use and
transportation planning ................................................................................. 157
STRATEGY 1B - Use and sale of State land for TOD................................. 160
STRATEGY 1C: Facilitate local review and approval processes................. 162
Strategy 1C( 1) - CEQA processes in relation to TOD ............................ 162
Strategy 1C( 2) - Improved models and analysis tools........................... 164
Strategy 1C( 3) - Improved data on effects and benefits of TOD ............ 167
STRATEGY 1D - Technical assistance and information............................... 169
STRATEGY 1D - Technical assistance and information............................... 170
STRATEGY 2A – Funding for local agencies to plan and implement TOD .. 172
Strategy 2A( 1) - Funding for local TOD planning ................................... 172
Strategy 2A( 2) - Funding for local agency TOD implementation ........... 174
Strategy 2A( 3) - Funding for TOD Demonstration Projects .................... 176
Strategy 2A( 4) - State “ Housing Incentive Program” .............................. 178
STRATEGY 2B - Targeted ‘ tax- increment financing’ for TOD ..................... 180
STRATEGY 2C - Financing for private sector development of TOD ............ 182
STRATEGY 2D - State transportation funds for TOD................................... 185
STRATEGY 2E - Expand ‘ Location Efficient Mortgage’ Program................. 190
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 192
TOD Internet Sites: .................................................................................................... 194
END NOTES ( Sources used in the report)........................................................... 195
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 1
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Introduction
Primary Authors of Section: Terry Parker and Stuart Mori, Department of Transportation
The Challenges
Over the next 20 years, California is
expected to add 11- 16 million new
residents and four to six million
additional households. I This
unprecedented growth is more than
the State experienced during the
1950s, 1960s, and 1970s combined. 1
The number of on- road vehicle miles
traveled ( VMT) per year in California
is projected to increase
from approximately
306 billion miles in
2000, to 475 billion
miles by 2020 - a 55
percent increase. The
number of on- road
vehicles is projected to
reach almost 35
million, up from about
23 million in 2000." 2 California’s
success at managing this growth will
impact its future prosperity, the
quality of its environment, and the
overall quality of life.
A strategy that can help manage this
growth and improve quality of life is
“ transit- oriented development”
( TOD). TOD is one of several
“ livable communities” strategies that
have emerged during the past
I Please note: Sources of information cited
in this report are listed in the “ Endnotes:
Sources” section. Also, comments and
definitions are provided throughout at the
bottom of pages, indicated by Roman
Numerals ( e. g., XI). New terms are defined
in the report the first time they are used; and
there is also a list of terms and definitions in
the separate Technical Appendix volume.
decade as ways to address
California’s ongoing growth
challenges, and to enhance
community and quality of life. TOD
focuses compact growth around
transit stops, thereby capitalizing on
transit investments by providing
improved access to transit facilities
and increasing ridership. TOD can
also produce a variety of other local
and regional benefits by encouraging
more “ walkable” compact and infill
development.
TOD seeks to align transit with a
community’s vision for how it wants
to grow by creating mixed- use,
denser, walkable ‘ transit villages’.
By implementing TOD on a broader
scale, California can better
coordinate transportation and land
uses. In addition, it can significantly
increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the State’s large
investment in mass transportation.
TOD can be an effective strategy to help
manage growth and improve quality of life
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 2
Overview of the Study
This study has taken a
comprehensive look at the ‘ state- of-the-
practice’ with TOD both within
California and across the United
States ( U. S.). The major objectives
of this study are to: define transit-oriented
development and its
successful components; describe the
benefits of TOD; examine the status
of implementation of TOD throughout
the U. S. and in California; identify
the major barriers and impediments
to the wider implementation of TOD;
identify what is working well, as well
as the need for additional resources
to overcome barriers; and, finally,
develop a set of strategies and
activities that the State of California
may implement to help facilitate the
broader implementation of TOD in
this state.
Through a 14- month process, this
study has been closely guided by
two advisory committees that include
broad representation from: State,
regional, and local government
agencies; transit providers; private
developers; financial institutions;
environmental groups; and other
interested “ stakeholders”. This
process also included in- depth focus
group discussions with private TOD
developers in northern and southern
California. In addition, interviews
were conducted with staff of
numerous local jurisdictions, transit
agencies, and other organizations.
The process described above has
resulted in this final report that offers
up- to- date and practical information
on TOD implementation. This report
includes chapters that provide: an
overview of the definition and criteria
of successful TOD; its benefits;
examples of TODs in the U. S. and
California; an assessment of the
challenges and barriers to
implementing TOD; important
insights into specific hurdles faced
by prospective developers of TOD in
California; information on
government funding and private
financial resources; and, finally,
strategies that State and regional
agencies and local governments
could take to help overcome barriers
to implementing TOD in California.
In addition to this report, there is also a
second Technical Appendix volume that
contains: an overview of trends in the
U. S.; detailed profiles of twelve TODs in
California; detailed information on
potential funding sources for TOD;
definitions of terms; a bibliography of
sources; a list of TOD- related web sites;
and other important resources. Also, an
additional separate report provides
detailed information on parking issues and
strategies in relation to TOD. These
documents are on the Internet at:
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ MassTrans/ tod. htm
What is Transit- Oriented
Development ( TOD)?
TOD is a transportation- related land
use strategy that can be used in
large urban and small communities
in coordination with bus, rail, and/ or
ferry transit systems. It provides
California communities with an
alternative to the predominant
pattern of low- density sprawl that
results in dependency on automobile
travel. The first chapter of this report
offers a definition of TOD that was
developed specially for this study.
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 3
Ingredients of Successful TOD
The report ( and appendix volumes)
list and describe the major
characteristics of successful TOD
implementation, such as: optimal
transit system design; community
partnerships; understanding local
real estate markets; planning for
TOD; coordination among local,
regional, and State organizations;
and providing the right mix of
planning and financial incentives. A
“ checklist” of typical TOD
characteristics is also provided.
Trends and Demand for TOD
Several broad demographic trends
prevalent in California are expected
to continue to favorably influence
market demand for TOD. These
trends include ongoing population
and household growth, as well as a
shortfall of new housing units. There
is also a significant need for housing
that is affordable to low and
moderate- income households in
California. Recent employment
trends include increased numbers
and concentrations of jobs,
particularly in the state’s major
metropolitan areas.
These trends, along with a growing
desire for urban housing that offers
reduced commute times and urban
amenities, point to ongoing market
demand for TOD projects, especially
in California’s congested
metropolitan areas.
Need for Mobility Options
Accompanying significant population
and employment growth is concern
over lengthening commutes and
increasing traffic congestion. From
1990 to 2000, as California’s
population grew by 13.6 percent, 3
the average time people spent
commuting increased by nearly 4
percent on average ( up from 56
minutes per day to 58 minutes). 4
That trend is expected to increase
into the future due to more cars on
the road.
" Transit- oriented
Development ( TOD) is
moderate to higher- density
development, located within
an easy walk of a major
transit stop, generally with a
mix of residential,
employment and shopping
opportunities designed for
pedestrians without
excluding the auto. TOD can
be new construction or
redevelopment of one or
more buildings whose
design and orientation
facilitate transit use."
Statewide TOD Study
Technical Advisory Committee
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 4
Alternatives to Congestion
It is estimated that between 1990-
2000, approximately 14 billion dollars
was invested on mass transportation
programs and projects in California. 5
This significant investment, along
with increasing congestion on
California’s roads and freeways, has
helped reverse a long trend of
decline in transit ridership.
In the same decade, 10 percent
more workers used transit in
California to commute to work than
previously. Significantly, two of
California’s transit systems have
experienced the highest ridership
one- year growth rates in the entire
nation: in 1999, ridership on the San
Diego Trolley increased by 18
percent; and on San Francisco's Bay
Area Rapid Transit District ( BART),
ridership increased by 13 percent. 6
However, despite California’s
impressive investment in transit and
increasing rates of transit use, the
majority of future land use growth in
California is likely to continue in
typical “ sprawl” development
patterns. The predictable results
would be increasing costs of local
infrastructure and services,
continued loss of farmland, and
increased dependence on cars.
Federal Transit Agency Rail
Funding Criteria
In 1997, the Federal Transit
Administration ( FTA) introduced a
new criterion – “ transit- supportive
land use” for proposed major transit
investments – as a significant factor
in determining which proposed rail
projects would receive Federal
transit funding. 7
Although the FTA, the State of
California, and transit agencies do not
have authority over local land use
decisions, FTA’s criteria gives an
incentive in the form of Federal transit
funding, which is a highly- competitive
national process.
Funding for TOD
One of the major obstacles to TOD
implementation is project funding and
financing. This issue is discussed in
Chapter 6. This chapter also provides
extensive information about a number
of local, regional, State, and Federal
funding sources that might be used for
TOD. More detailed information about
each of these sources is available in
the Technical Appendix volume.
Positive step: Transit Villages Act
California has taken positive steps in
planning for TOD. One of the most
notable of these was the passage of
the State ‘ Transit Villages Act’ in
1994.8 This law enables local
jurisdictions to prepare ‘ transit village
plans’ near major transit stations.
Unfortunately, it did not provide
funding to prepare these plans or to
address other important
implementation issues and needs.
What is the status of TOD in
California?
This study has found that there is
more activity with TOD planning and
implementation in California now than
at any time during the last century. At
every major transit agency in the state,
there are at least one or more new
TOD projects currently underway. For
some transit systems, these are the
first TODs that the transit property has
been directly involved with, even after
more than a decade of providing
service.
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 5
In addition, numerous local
jurisdictions have recently
undertaken TOD planning and
implementation efforts in areas
around major transit stations. Also,
a number of redevelopment
agencies have facilitated the
implementation of TODs as part of
downtown renewal programs. Some
of the local barriers that once made
TOD difficult to implement have been
removed. Expertise and enthusiasm
about TOD is growing among more
private developers. Major
conferences, such as the Urban
Land Institute, Local Government
Commission, and Rail~ Volution
conferences focus on “ livable
community” efforts, including TOD.
Yet, while interest in TOD is
significant, the reality in California is
that TOD is the ‘ exception and not
the rule’ at most major transit
stations. The dominant land uses
around the majority of the state’s
major bus, rail, and ferry stations are
low- density, automobile- oriented
development that does not take
advantage of proximity to high-quality
transit service or provide
good access to transit stations ( in
fact, it often creates a barrier).
In this study’s survey of the status of
TOD implementation in California, a
variety of project types, experiences,
challenges and successes were
identified. These are described in
twelve “ TOD Profiles” in Chapter 5
( as well as in more detailed “ case
study” profiles in the Technical
Appendix volume).
What are the Benefits of TOD?
The results of this study indicate that
implementing TOD can have
significant benefits to individuals,
communities, regions, and California
as a whole. ( The extent that these
benefits occur depends on the
design and location of TODs, as well
as on the type and quality of transit
service available.)
Ten major areas of benefits from
TOD are listed below. ( Chapters 2
and 3 of this report provide more
detailed information on each.)
􀀗 TOD can provide mobility
choices. By creating “ activity
nodes” linked by transit, TOD
provides important mobility
options, very much needed in the
state’s most congested
metropolitan areas. This allows
young people, the elderly, people
who prefer not to drive, and those
who don’t own cars the ability to
get around.
􀀗 TOD can increase public safety.
By creating places that are active
through the day and evening and
providing “ eyes on the street”,
TOD helps increase safety for
pedestrians, transit- users, and
many others.
􀀗 TOD can increase transit
ridership. TOD improves the
efficiency and effectiveness of our
transit service investments by
increasing the use of transit near
stations by 20 to 40 percent.
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 6
􀀗 TOD can reduce the rate of
increase in vehicle miles
traveled ( VMT). Vehicle travel
in California has increased faster
than the State’s population for
many years. TOD can lower
annual household rates of driving
by 20 to 40 percent for those
living, working, and/ or shopping
near major transit stations.
􀀗 TOD can increase households’
disposable income. Housing
and transportation are the first
and second largest household
expenses, respectively. TOD can
free up households’ income by
reducing the amount of driving
required for daily trips, which can
save households up to $ 3- 4,000
per year ( that can be spent for
housing and other uses).
􀀗 TOD reduces air pollution and
energy consumption rates. By
providing safe and easy access
to transit, TOD allows
households to significantly
reduce their rates of air pollution
and energy consumption.
􀀗 TOD can help conserve
resource lands and open
space. Because TOD
consumes less land than low-density,
auto- oriented growth, it
reduces the need to convert
farmland and open spaces to
development.
􀀗 TOD can play a role in
economic development. TOD
is increasingly used as a tool to
revitalize aging downtowns and
declining urban neighborhoods,
and to enhance tax revenues for
local jurisdictions.
􀀗 TOD can contribute to more
affordable housing. TOD can
add to the supply of affordable
housing by providing sites for
lower- cost and accessible
housing, and by reducing
household transportation
expenditures. It has been
estimated that costs for land and
housing structures can be
significantly reduced through
more compact growth patterns. 9
􀀗 TOD can decrease local
infrastructure costs.
Depending on local
circumstances, compact
development such as TOD, can
help reduce infrastructure costs
for expanding water, sewage,
and roads to local governments
and property owners by up to 25
percent through more compact
and infill development patterns. 10
Challenges for Implementing TOD
Although the community and
transportation benefits of TOD can
be significant, there are still many
major implementation barriers that
limit the broader implementation of
TOD in California. Based on this
study’s review of TOD, Chapter 8
summarizes major barriers to TOD
implementation, which include:
􀀗 Transit system location and
design. The location and design of
transit systems can be a major
barrier to successful TOD.
Unfortunately, stations often have
poor pedestrian access and are not
well integrated with the surrounding
local community. For example,
broad expanses of surface- level
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 7
parking often separate stations
from the surrounding community;
and stations and transit corridors
are often located in areas with little
or no development potential, which
significantly reduces transit’s ability
to link activity centers.
􀀗 Local community concerns. For
local neighborhoods, proposals for
TOD projects often are associated
with concerns about changing the
character of a community. Even
with quality design and appropriate
density, and despite local
government support, community
concerns about proposed TOD
projects often become substantial
hurdles to implementation.
􀀗 Local zoning not transit- friendly.
In most major transit station sites in
the State, local zoning has not
been changed to reflect the
presence of transit. Local
development codes around major
stations often tend to favor low-density,
auto- oriented uses.
Creating and implementing transit-friendly
zoning becomes an
additional hurdle.
􀀗 Higher developer risk and cost.
Mixed- use and/ or higher- density
projects ( such as in TOD) present
a higher level of risk for developers
and financiers as compared to
typical ‘ sprawl’. Due to innovative
and often high- quality design, TOD
can be more costly to build. It is
often subjected to more stringent
regulations as well as to more
complex local approval processes
than conventional “ auto- oriented”
projects, which also contributes to
higher development costs.
􀀗 Financing difficult to obtain.
Obtaining private financing for TODs
is often also a significant barrier to
implementation. Many lenders
have concerns about or lack
experience with financing mixed- use
projects or those with lower parking
ratios, such as are typical in TOD.
Public financing for implementing
TOD is limited and difficult to obtain
in California, and often is only
available within redevelopment
agency areas.
What Could the State Do to
Encourage TOD Implementation?
An important objective of this study is
the identification of strategies that the
State of California could pursue in
order to facilitate the broader
implementation of TODs in the state.
Recommendations regarding potential
State- level strategies to encourage
broader implementation of TOD
emerged from an extensive process
that included: a ‘ state- of- the- practice’
review; interviews with developers,
local officials, transit operators, and
special- interest groups; input from staff
and consultants; as well as numerous
meetings of the two statewide advisory
committees that were convened for
this study.
Based on the results of this process,
members of the study’s Policy
Steering Committee have reached
consensus regarding fourteen
recommended state- level strategies to
assist in overcoming TOD
implementation barriers. These
strategies can be grouped into two
broad areas, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 8
Strategy Area # 1: State Policies
and Practices
Strategies in this category include:
􀀗 Encouraging improved
coordination of land use and
transportation planning at
local and regional levels.
􀀗 Facilitating the use and sale
of State- owned land near
major transit stations for TOD.
􀀗 Examining State
environmental review
requirements in relation to
TOD to determine whether
changes may be indicated to
reduce barriers.
􀀗 Contributing to improved data
on travel and economic
impacts of TOD, and
incorporating data into
improved analysis and
decision- making tools; and
􀀗 Providing information and
technical assistance on TOD
implementation.
TOD proponents often face
significant delays and difficulties
when trying to secure local land use
approvals for TOD projects, even in
areas where State and local policies
are supportive of this type of
development. The State can
encourage local agencies to more
closely link land use practices that
promote a transit- friendly urban form
by providing information, funding for
planning, and encouraging
cooperation.
In addition, the State can provide
direct assistance for TOD
implementation by reducing existing
barriers to leasing or purchasing State-owned
“ excess” and/ or underutilized
land located near major transit
stations. There is also an important
role for the State in developing and
disseminating data and information
about the effects and benefits of TOD
regarding travel, economic, and social
benefits and impacts. This information
is necessary in order to improve the
accuracy of analysis prepared for
proposed TOD projects, and also
could help expedite local land use
approval processes.
Strategy Area # 2: State Funding for
Planning and Implementation
The Policy Steering Committee for this
study recommends that the State of
California could help overcome
barriers to funding and financing TOD
implementation by:
􀀗 Providing funding to local
jurisdictions to prepare plans and
adopt ordinances that facilitate
transit- oriented development.
􀀗 Providing financial incentives to
enable local agencies and private
organizations to implement TOD.
􀀗 Offering funding for specific types
of TOD demonstration projects.
􀀗 Changing existing law to allow
local agencies to provide ‘ tax-increment
financing’ around major
transit stations, even if they are
located outside redevelopment
areas.
INTRODUCTION
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 9
􀀗 Allowing greater flexibility in the
use of State transportation funds
for TOD; and
􀀗 Helping to make private TOD
mortgage instruments ( such as
the “ Location Efficient Mortgage”
( LEM) program more widely
available.
Even though market demand for
TOD- style projects is high in the
state’s major metropolitan areas, it is
often difficult for developers of
transit- supportive projects to obtain
public funding and private financing.
Public incentives for TOD
implementation in California are very
limited, outside established local
redevelopment areas. And, the
mixed- use aspect of good TOD
design can make it difficult for
developers to obtain loans from
private financial institutions who are
not accustomed to funding these
types of projects.
To complicate the situation, local
jurisdictions often lack the resources
necessary to prepare TOD ‘ specific
plans’ or to change development
ordinances to encourage TOD. In
addition, local agencies typically lack
the ability to provide adequate
financial incentives or assistance to
encourage quality TOD design and
implementation, unless a project is
located within an established
redevelopment area where tax-increment
financing is available.
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 10
California Department of Transportation
SECTION 1: DEFINITION AND BENEFITS OF
TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
In this section, the report offers a definition of TOD and provides an overview
of the components of successful TODs. It then summarizes a literature
review of the major benefits of TOD, as well as its potential effects on travel
and transit use.
CHAPTER 1: What Is Transit- Oriented Development?
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
CHAPTER 3: How Does TOD Affect Travel and Transit Use?
Sacramento Regional Transit Light Rail station on the K Street Mall is
part of a central city TOD that includes restaurants, offices, theatres,
specialty stores, and a convention center.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 11
CHAPTER 1: What Is Transit- Oriented Development?
Principal Authors of Chapter: GB Arrington and Topaz Faulkner
I. Introduction
This chapter summarizes the results of
a literature search of definitions of
transit- oriented development ( TOD). II It
also offers a new definition developed
specifically for this study. And, it lists
several of the recommended
components for a successful TOD.
Exploring the universe of TOD
definitions and the components of a
successful development involved an
extensive review of more than two
dozen contemporary and historical
sources. University research, studies,
guidelines, and handbooks from
across the United States and Canada
were augmented by searches of the
Internet. A bibliography of the sources
and Internet sites is included in a
separate Appendix.
Evolution of the Concept of TOD
Over the past 20+ years Transit-
Oriented Development ( TOD) has
gone through a significant evolution.
TOD made its first appearance in the
late 1980s as a bold conceptual
alternative to conventional sprawl.
From here it evolved to architectural
drawings and a handful of built
examples. TOD then grew into a more
specialized real estate product that
now has started to come of age as it
gradually enters the mainstream of
development.
II In this report, the terms transit- oriented
development, transit- supportive
development, and transit villages are all
used interchangeably.
In many ways, “ transit- oriented
development” describes a return to the
streetcar- oriented commercial areas of
the last century and the villages that
grew around the rail stops. Before the
proliferation of the automobile, it
seemed natural to cluster commercial
and residential uses within easy walking
distance of each other and transit.
Following World War II, freeways
facilitated the exodus to suburban
subdivisions that were not designed with
transit service in mind. Zoning
regulations, originally designed to
protect residents from noxious
industries, further segregated
businesses from residences.
Metropolitan regions throughout the
country are experiencing the
consequences of low- density sprawl and
automobile- dependent land use
patterns. A growing interest in reversing
land use and transportation policies that
have fostered traffic congestion, long
commutes, air pollution, and inner city
decay has led to land use strategies that
focus on alternatives to the auto. TOD
has been one component of this effort;
however, its application shifts depending
upon circumstances.
Lennertz and Coyle Associates /
Seth Harry
Concept image for Pleasant Hill TOD
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 12
In the early 1990s, transit agencies
and local jurisdictions in some
regions began to embrace TOD as a
growth strategy to preserve regional
mobility and quality of life. TOD was
seen as “ an alternative development
model.” TOD offered transit
agencies two important benefits:
􀁦 A broader base of community and
political support for transit. Transit
was no longer seen as just an
alternative to the automobile —
transit could be a component of
“ livable communities” strategies;
and
􀁦 The long- term prospect of higher
transit ridership by gradually
reversing automobile- dependent
development patterns to a pattern
of development that was “ transit-friendly.”
By the end of the 1990s, some groups
felt that TOD had “ morphed” into a
specific type of development product.
The magazine Building Design &
Construction referred to TOD much
more narrowly as “ transit- based
housing at rail stops”. 11
II. Definitions of TOD
TOD has been defined at a number
of levels and a variety of scales. Not
surprisingly, there is no consensus in
the literature on just what constitutes
TOD. TOD is seen as an alternative
to sprawl, as a mixed- use transit-friendly
community, and as a specific
development type. There are
constituencies for each of these
categories of definitions.
The Technical Advisory Committee to
this study developed the following
definition of TOD based on other
available definitions, as well as their
direct experience implementing
TODs:
At the local level, TOD generally
implies a mix of higher- density land
uses and activities designed and
located to create a safe and
convenient environment that
encourages transit ridership as well as
bicycling and walking.
During the early 1990s, architect and
planner Peter Calthorpe added more
specifics to the definition of TOD:
“ A Transit- Oriented Development
( TOD) is a mixed- use community
within an average one- fourth- mile
walking distance of a transit stop and
core commercial area. The design,
configuration, and mix of uses
emphasize a pedestrian- oriented
" Transit- oriented
Development ( TOD) is
moderate to higher- density
development, located within
an easy walk of a major
transit stop, generally with a
mix of residential,
employment and shopping
opportunities designed for
pedestrians without
excluding the auto. TOD can
be new construction or
redevelopment of one or
more buildings whose
design and orientation
facilitate transit use."
- Statewide TOD Study
Technical Advisory Committee
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 13
environment and reinforce the use of
public transportation. TODs mix
residential, retail, office, open space,
and public uses within comfortable
walking distance, making it convenient
for residents and employees to travel
by transit, bicycle or foot, as well as by
car.” 12
Calthorpe further distinguishes
various types of TODs based upon
the level of transit serving them:
“ Urban TODs are located on the
Trunk Line Network of the regional
transit system, at light rail stops or at
transfer stations, and may be
developed at high commercial
intensities and residential densities.”
“ Neighborhood TODs are located on
the Feeder Bus Line Network within
10 minutes transit travel time from a
light rail stop or transfer stations and
should place an emphasis on
residential uses and local- serving
shopping.” 13
In a similar manner, TODs may be
assessed on the basis of whether
they are serving a neighborhood
within a community, or an entire
region. In the case of neighborhood
TODs, the emphasis is on residential
use with locally- oriented shopping in
facilities that are sized to serve the
population living in close proximity.
Although some of the businesses
may be sufficiently unique to draw
customers from a larger area, most
of the shops and services will be
similar to those found in other
neighborhoods.
Alternatively, a regional TOD will
include uses that attract consumers
from a broad metropolitan area.
Examples would include: a large
shopping mall; a TOD that is
adjacent to a university; or a major
employment center or downtown.
During the 1990s, a group of
innovative architects and planners
started an initiative entitled “ The New
Urbanism.” Its magazine, The New
Urban News, stated: “ TOD is, in its
most basic form, a New Urbanist
neighborhood – often called a
Traditional Neighborhood
Development – centered on a mass
transit station.” 14
“ New Urbanism” proposes a return to
more pedestrian- oriented
communities, based on the patterns
that existed before World War II.
The goal is to reintegrate housing,
shopping, work, and public places
into mixed- use developments. At the
same time, New Urbanism
acknowledges that the automobile
and “ big box” retail stores are here to
stay. This community design
‘ Ohlone- Chynoweth’ TOD in San Jose.
The project includes a mix of commercial and
residential uses designed in a manner that is
very transit friendly.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 14
concept seeks to “ tame” these
elements rather than eliminate them.
The principles of New Urbanism
include: 15
􀀗 An emphasis on compact,
walkable neighborhoods that are
typically no more than a quarter
mile from center to edge. These
neighborhoods are the basic
building block of the regional
structure and join together to
form towns and cities.
􀀗 An interconnected network of
streets to encourage pedestrians
and bicycles while not precluding
automobiles. A complete
hierarchy of streets and a
connected system allows
pedestrians and cars to function
and interact efficiently. III
􀀗 A complex mix of uses
( residential, working, shopping
and recreating) should occur
within close proximity. A range
of housing options allows a
III The importance of interconnected street
networks is underscored in a study entitled
“ Neighborhood Site Design and Pedestrian
Travel.” III The research was based on a
study of 12 neighborhoods similar in terms
of their population densities, land use mix,
and income levels. Half of the
neighborhoods had extensive pedestrian
facilities, and the remainder had very limited
facilities. The findings suggest that
neighborhood site design plays a
determining role in supporting walking as an
alternative to driving. The volume of
pedestrian trips was three times higher in
urban sites with small street blocks and
continuous sidewalks than in suburban sites
with large blocks and discontinuous
sidewalks.
variety of ages and incomes
within a single neighborhood;
􀀗 The neighborhood has public
space at the center to provide
the focus of the public life. The
edges should be defined by
man- made elements that may
include larger retail stores
forming a main street that serves
multiple neighborhoods;
􀀗 Public spaces are given priority,
with civic buildings in prominent
locations. Open space is in the
form of squares, parks, and
plazas. Streets form a majority
of our public spaces and the
buildings that frame them are
essential in creating active and
safer spaces.
At the State level, in 1994 California
enacted the “ Transit Village
Development Planning Act” ( Section
65460 of the Government Code).
This act authorizes local
governments to develop land use
plans around major transit stations
and to provide “ density bonuses”
within them to allow the construction
of higher- density development than
would otherwise be allowed by local
zoning codes. The Transit Village
Act of 1994 defines TOD as: “ a
neighborhood centered around a
transit station that is planned and
designed so that residents, workers,
shoppers, and others find it
convenient and attractive to
patronize transit. “ It contains “ a mix
of housing types, including multiple
dwelling units, within not more than a
quarter mile of an existing or planned
rail station.”
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 15
At the Federal level, during the later
1990s, the Federal Transit
Administration ( FTA) became a
strong advocate for TOD as part of
its “ Livable Communities Initiative.”
FTA’s “ Building Livable Communities
with Transit” 16 booklet defines TOD
in two ways – as an alternative to
sprawl and as a specific
development type:
􀀗 “ Transit- oriented communities
are characterized by design and
development patterns that are
conducive to the use of transit,
bicycling, and walking to access
opportunities – shopping,
business centers, services,
housing, and others.” ( FTA)
􀀗 “ Transit- oriented development
and community- sensitive transit
can help reverse these trends” of
“ sprawl development patterns
( leading) to increasingly longer
trips, poor pedestrian access,
traffic congestion, and adverse
environmental impacts.”
According to FTA, these types of
development are either planned after
a decision has been made to
construct new major transit
investment, or they are built adjacent
to existing or planned high- quality
transit service.
III. Components of Successful
Transit- Oriented Development
There are certain types of design
components that can effectively
encourage people to take transit.
These are summarized briefly in the
following section.
TOD Design Components
The following list from “ Planning for
Transit- Friendly Land Use: A
Handbook for New Jersey
Communities” 17 provides an overview
of components of successful TOD:
􀀗 A transit station or stop that is a
visible point of identity for the
neighborhood, district, or
community it serves;
􀀗 Access to the transit station or stop
that is along clear, direct, and
convenient routes;
􀀗 Continuous and safe sidewalks and
pathways that make pedestrian
access easy;
􀀗 Bike paths and storage locations
that encourage bicycle access;
􀀗 Safe and comfortable places to
wait and to meet others;
􀀗 Major points of origin or destination
for transit riders that are in easy
and interesting walking distance of
the transit station or stop;
􀀗 A mix of land uses, including retail,
housing, and/ or offices and other
employment centers and perhaps
also such special uses as
governmental offices, schools and
health care facilities, or tourist or
recreation locations;
􀀗 Essential services and
conveniences that are located in,
or in close proximity to, the transit
station, such as: a day care center
or dry cleaning shop, facilitating
“ trip- linking” and thus eliminating
the need to make additional stops
during the trip;
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 16
Parsons Brinckerhoff Santa Clara VTA
􀀗 Safe, well- lit, attractive areas for
all- day parking, drop- off and
pick- up, and direct transfer
between modes of transit; and
􀀗 An overall environment that is
active, human scaled, and
visually diverse and interesting,
where people are encouraged to
walk.
TOD or TAD: Transit-
Oriented or Transit- Adjacent
Development?
Within the ‘ family’ of TOD you
might say there are two
“ brothers” – TAD and TOD.
Transit- Adjacent Development
( TAD) can be defined broadly as
development in close proximity to
transit, generally within one- quarter
mile, which comprises the majority of
the current TOD examples.
The uses can be transit- friendly;
however, the specific design of these
projects has not been directly
influenced by transit. The same
development product would occur,
whether transit was there or not. IV
The Cisco Systems campus adjacent
to the Champion Station along the
Tasman West light rail line in San
Jose is a classic example of “ transit
adjacent development” -- it is close
to transit, but not oriented to transit.
IV This projects consultant, GB Arrington,
developed the classification of TOD and
TAD in response to an on- going debate
within the transit industry on what
constituted TOD. Some transit agencies
were concerned that the “ TOD” term was
being used to describe any type of
development next to transit, whether or not it
was transit- supportive.
There are numerous Cisco buildings
in the area, but they are low- density,
scattered, and separated from transit
stations by large expanses of
surface parking lots.
Comparatively, in the case of TOD,
the projects are also located within a
quarter mile of the station but the
development has been, through
public policy or private initiative,
partially molded by transit. The
reshaping in relationship to transit
might include one or all of the
following:
􀀗 A compact site design, oriented
for the pedestrian;
􀀗 Higher- density and intensity of
uses, in relation to the norm for
the community;
Cisco Systems campus in San Jose
is an example of ‘ transit- adjacent
development’
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 17
􀀗 Buildings oriented to transit,
doors located convenient to a
transit stop;
􀀗 Limited parking, the parking
supply has been “ pinched” or
placed in multi- level parking
structures;
􀀗 Pedestrian access and high-quality,
safe facilities.
IV. TOD: Policy Description or
Development Model?
In describing TOD, some observers
view TOD more as a policy
description than a development
model. This perspective is based on
a growing body of experience that
while the number of TOD plans has
increased rapidly, there are few
development companies specializing
in the construction of TODs as a
market niche. In part, this can be
attributed to the fact that transit on its
own does not have sufficient volume
of patrons to support new
development. Under that view, there
is no pure TOD real estate market
per se.
There is, however, a considerable
market for “ development products”
that work well for TODs, given their
higher- density and a mix of uses at a
pedestrian scale. ( See Chapter 6 for
a broader discussion). Those
development products include office,
multiple- family and local retail uses.
The presence of transit can add
value to this complementary slice of
the market.
V. Performance Criteria for TOD
Local governments typically regulate
conventional developments by what are
termed “ prescriptive” standards that
specify exactly how a facility is to be
built and where. Such a uniform
approach provides authorities and
developers very clear guidelines.
However, such prescriptive standards
tend to discourage innovative solutions
and do not always result in quality
projects.
Conversely, “ performance” standards
describe the objectives that a facility is
supposed to meet, thus allowing greater
flexibility for creative solutions. The use
of a combination of prescriptive
standards for routinely- encountered
situations and performance
standards for specific types of sites
can result in alternative standards
that meet local circumstances in a
more cost- effective and creative
manner.
TODs can include master planned bus TODs
( like Twin Creeks in Southern Oregon) as
well as urban infill projects on rail lines.
Parsons Brinckerhoff
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 18
At a minimum, the following
performance standards/ criteria apply
to TOD:
􀀗 Moderate and higher- density
development within fairly easy
walking distance of major transit;
􀀗 Mix of residential, employment, and
shopping opportunities; and
􀀗 Pedestrian- oriented design without
excluding the automobile.
In his 1990 Transit- Oriented
Development Design Guidelines,
Peter Calthorpe18 suggests a series
of specific location and site criteria
( which are included in the appendix
volume to this report). He states that
the TOD concept may be applied at
various locations, including: infill sites,
those with potential for redevelopment,
and as new developments in urban
growth areas.
Regardless of the location or the
number of property owners, it is very
useful to have a comprehensive TOD
Development Plan or Specific Plan.
Peter Calthorpe also emphasizes that
property owners need to work together
and with the local jurisdiction to
formulate successful development
plans and implementation
mechanisms.
VI. Federal Rail Transit Funding
Criteria
In 1997, the Federal Transit
Administration ( FTA) started
implementing an evaluation criteria
regarding transit- supportive land use
in determining which projects would be
awarded Federal ‘ New Starts’ funding
for rail transit projects. 19 Through this
policy, the Federal government
recognizes that capturing the land use
and economic development
opportunities provided by major transit
investments requires transit- friendly
planning for areas around transit
stations.
Although the FTA ( like any Federal
or State agency) cannot mandate
any specific land uses, the agency
provides a significant incentive for
TOD by basing priority for Federal
funding on transit- supportive land
use. The Federal ‘ New Starts’
funding process is highly competitive
at a national level. To be able to
successfully compete with transit
proposals from other states for this
important funding, California’s
transportation and land use agencies
must demonstrate that land uses
along proposed new rail projects will
be transit- supportive.
The framework that the Federal
Transit Administration uses to
evaluate rail transit projects
considers three main levels:
1. Containment of sprawl at a
regional scale;
2. Focus of development growth
on the transit corridor; and
3. Transit- friendly zoning with a
mix of uses, pedestrian scale,
increased density, and
parking limits in station areas.
In evaluating the potential for funding
of a rail transit project, FTA applies
eight specific transit- supportive land
use measurement factors on a
sliding scale. 20 These are:
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 19
1. Existing Land Use
Existing station area population and
employment levels. The presence of
high trip generators in the mix of land
uses. The character of the station area
and presence of pedestrian- friendly
development. The existing parking
supply and regional parking policies.
2. Containment of Sprawl
Enforceable urban containment and
growth management policies. Existing
and planned densities and market
trends for development within the
corridor and region.
3. Transit- Supportive Corridor Policies
Public plans and policies and
private/ institutional initiatives that
support transit- oriented land use
patterns within transit corridors and
station areas. Plans and policies to
increase station- area development;
plans and policies to enhance the
transit- friendly character of
development; and parking policies.
4. Supportive Zoning Near Transit
Stations
Zoning ordinances that support
increased densities in transit station
areas, enhance the transit- oriented
character of the station area, and allow
for reduced parking.
5. Tools to Implement Land Use Policies
Endorsement and participation of public
agencies, organizations, and the private
sector in the development and planning
process. Tools and actions are in place to
promote transit- oriented development.
Involvement of the development
community in supporting the station- area
plans and joint development efforts.
Public involvement in corridor and station
area planning.
6. Track Record of Performance
Demonstrated cases of development
affected by transit- oriented policies.
Corridor development targets and station
area development proposals and status.
7. Performance of Land Use Policies
Demonstrated cases of development
affected by transit- oriented policies.
Corridor development targets and station
area development proposals and status.
8. Existing and planned pedestrian
facilities, including access for persons with
disabilities.
What emphasis has been placed on
pedestrian facilities and systems as part
of land use planning? What is the status
of existing and planned pedestrian
facilities, including curb ramp transition
plans in station areas?
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 20
VII. TOD Evaluation Checklist
A checklist of attributes of TOD is provided below for use by local jurisdictions
and transit agencies, developers, and others in evaluating whether a project or
plan conforms to criteria for TOD. ( Please note: this list below is intended to be
advisory only, and is provided as a helpful guideline.)
For development to be transit- oriented, generally it needs to be shaped by transit
in terms of parking, density, and/ or building orientation in comparison to more
conventional development. It is not enough that it is just adjacent to transit.
Local governments play a significant role in promoting TOD through plans,
policies, zoning provisions, and incentives for supportive densities, designs, and
mix of land uses. A successful TOD will reinforce the community and the transit
system. This checklist is intended to guide communities in reviewing proposed
projects and in assessing the transit- friendliness of current land use codes and
ordinances.
Within an easy walk of a major transit stop ( e. g., ¼ to ½ mile walk), consider the
following:
LAND USE
􀂉 Are key sites designated for ” transit- friendly” uses and densities?
( walkable, mixed- use, not dominated by activities with significant
automobile use )
􀂉 Are “ transit- friendly” land uses permitted outright, not requiring special
approval?
􀂉 Are higher densities allowed near transit?
􀂉 Are multiple compatible uses permitted within buildings near transit?
􀂉 Is a mix of uses generating pedestrian traffic concentrated within walking
distance of transit?
􀂉 Are auto- oriented uses discouraged or prohibited near transit?
SITE DESIGN
􀂉 Are buildings and primary entrances sited to be easily accessible from
the street?
􀂉 Do the designs of areas and buildings allow direct pedestrian
movements between transit, mixed land uses, and surrounding areas?
􀂉 Does the site’s design allow for the intensification of densities over time?
􀂉 Are the first floor uses “ active” and pedestrian- oriented?
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 1: What is Transit- Oriented Development?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 21
􀂉 Are amenities provided to help create a pedestrian environment along
and between buildings?
􀂉 Are there sidewalks along the site frontage? Do they connect to
sidewalks and streets on adjacent and nearby properties?
􀂉 Are there trees sheltering streets and sidewalks? Pedestrian- scale
lighting?
STREET PATTERNS & PARKING
􀂉 Are parking requirements reduced in close proximity to transit,
compared to the norm?
􀂉 Is structured parking encouraged rather than surface lots in higher-density
areas?
􀂉 Is most of the parking located to the side or to the rear of the buildings?
􀂉 Are street patterns based on a grid/ interconnected system that simplifies
access?
􀂉 Are pedestrian routes buffered from fast- moving traffic and expanses of
parking?
􀂉 Are there convenient crosswalks to other uses on- and off- site?
􀂉 Can residents and employees safely walk or bicycle to a store, post
office, park, café or bank?
􀂉 Does the site’s street pattern connect with streets in adjacent
developments?
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 22
Parsons Brinckerhoff and the
California Department of Transportation
CHAPTER 2: What are the Major Benefits of TOD?
Primary Authors: John Boroski, GB Arrington, Sam Seskin, Terry Parker, and Daniel Mayer
I. Introduction
This chapter describes some of the
more important social, economic,
and environmental benefits that can
result from the implementation of
transit- oriented development ( TOD).
Land use planners, transit agencies,
environmentalists, and policy- makers
have begun to consider TOD as a
part of an important alternative to the
low- density sprawl and automobile-dependant
land use patterns. More
specifically, focusing growth around
transit stations is a way to capitalize
on transit investments. It can also
contribute to a variety of local and
regional benefits as part of a strategy
for compact and infill development.
The potential benefits of TOD
include:
􀀗 Enhanced quality of life for
community residents,
􀀗 Increased options for mobility,
especially in congested urban
and suburban areas,
􀀗 Reduced rates of vehicle trip-making
and fewer vehicle miles
households travel by
automobile,
􀀗 Improved air quality and
reduced energy consumption,
􀀗 Preservation of prime farmland
and other resource lands,
􀀗 Reduced infrastructure costs for
government, developers, and
property owners,
􀀗 Increased safety for pedestrian and
bicyclists, and helping to reduce
aggressive driving injuries and
deaths.
The information presented on these
and other benefits is based upon an
extensive literature review of over
three dozen documents. Sources
that were reviewed include academic
studies, trade journal articles,
consultant reports, agency studies,
and planning documents ( available
in hard copy or on the Internet).
Based on this available information,
a solid case can be made that these
expected benefits could be realized
when TOD is implemented as part of
a broader land use and
transportation strategy.
‘ Whisman Station; TOD in Mountain View,
San Francisco Bay Area near a Santa Clara Valley
Transit Authority light rail station.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 23
The material presented in this
chapter is intended to be a source of
readily accessible information about
the benefits and suitability of transit-oriented
development in local
communities. It is not meant to be
an exhaustive account of all the
benefits attributable to TOD; rather,
this summary is a starting point upon
which additional research can and
should be added.
II. Benefits of Transit- Oriented
Development: An Overview
Categories of the major benefits from
TODs are listed below, and
discussed in detail in the following
sections.
Quality of Life
TOD can offer “ 24- hour” activity
patterns that residents and
businesses increasingly value. TOD
also provides mobility options that
are particularly valued by
households with non- drivers ( e. g.,
children and the elderly). These
alternative modes ( transit, walking,
and biking) also promote more active
lifestyles, with health benefits for
everyone. By increasing pedestrian
travel and emphasizing public space,
TODs also improve the opportunities
for personal interaction and
community building.
Quality of life, or ‘ livability’, is a term
that is often used to represent a host
of factors that collectively describe a
good place to live. The definition of
livability varies from person to
person, but often includes concepts
such as safe neighborhoods, access
to jobs and recreation, a clean
environment, a sense of community,
good schools, attractive and
affordable housing, and moderate
cost of living. Although there is
some disagreement regarding a
complete list of factors, how these
factors are defined, and how they
should be ranked, the fact that
quality of life concerns are
increasingly mentioned in public
discourse indicates a growing
interest about the issues surrounding
this term. This section describes
how TOD can contribute to particular
aspects of quality of life ( other topics
such as improved air quality,
affordable housing, and public safety
are described below).
Enhanced Mobility
Research indicates that because of
their pedestrian orientation, mix of
land uses, and access to transit
TODs increase the number and
percent of trips made by transit,
walking and cycling. TOD provides
important mobility options for all non-drivers,
especially for children and
the elderly. Table 2.1 ( below) shows
that in the Portland, Oregon
metropolitan region, the share of
walk, transit, and bike trips are
higher in neighborhoods with TOD
characteristics. ( This can be seen in
the first category under ‘ Land Use
Type’ in the category ‘ Good Transit
& Mixed- use’ in Table 2.1, on the
following page.)
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 24
Increasing the range of travel options
available to the general public will
become increasingly important in the
coming years. This is especially true
in California’s major metropolitan
areas where traffic congestion
continues to worsen.
Statewide, annual vehicle miles of
travel ( VMT) are expected to
increase from 306 billion miles in
2000, to roughly 475 billion miles by
2020, an increase of 55 percent. 21
This will worsen congestion
throughout California, even if
significant road investments are
implemented.
Changing demographics indicate a
need for more mobility options:
􀀗 The number of working families
continues to increase ( i. e.,
parents with more household
demands and relatively less time
to transport children).
􀀗 As the “ baby boom” generation
ages, this population will
increasingly require alternate
mobility options that do not
require driving.
􀀗 The percentage of traditional
nuclear families is declining,
while at the same time the
portions of single- parent families
and other household types are
increasing.
Working mothers in particular would
benefit from increased transportation
options, as mothers with school-aged
children make 20 percent more
trips on average than women in
general do, and 21 percent more
trips than men ( nearly half of these
trips are for chauffeuring and other
errands). 22
The percentage of people aged 65
years old and over in California,
increased from 10.5 percent of
population in 1990 to 11.1 percent in
1998.23 This rate of growth exceeds
the national average for this age
group, and indicates a growing need
for transit and other mobility options.
Health Benefits
By providing mobility options for
drivers and non- drivers alike, TODs
offer both direct and indirect health
Land Use Type % Auto % Walk % Transit % Bike % Other
VMT per
Capita
Autos per
Household
Good Transit &
Mixed Use 58.1% 27.0% 11.5% 1.9% 1.5% 9.80 0.93
Good Transit Only 74.4% 15.2% 7.9% 1.4% 1.1% 13.28 1.50
Rest of Mulnomah Co. 81.5% 9.7% 3.5% 1.6% 3.7% 17.34 1.74
Rest of Region 87.3% 6.1% 1.2% 0.8% 4.6% 21.79 1.93
Source: Metro 1994 Travel Behavior Survey
Mode Share
Table 2.1: Metro Travel Behavior Survey Results for Portland, Mulnomah County, Oregon
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 25
benefits. V The direct benefits are the
result of opportunities for a more
active lifestyle that pedestrian and
transit- friendly neighborhoods
provide.
Decades of sprawling urban
development are correlated with a
dramatic increase in the number of
overweight adults and children.
Indeed, the number of obese adults
and children has also dramatically
grown during this time period.
Furthermore, along with both of
these trends has been an increase in
health problems associated with
inactivity.
As researchers ascertain the risks of
leading a sedentary lifestyle, public
health officials are beginning to
advocate for different types of
communities that provide viable
mobility alternatives. Increasing
evidence shows that the risks of a
sedentary lifestyle are alarming. For
example, excessive inactivity and the
obesity that results from it, may be a
primary contributing factor in the
200,000 annual deaths that are
caused by heart disease, cancer,
and diabetes. However,
developments like TODs that
emphasize mixed land uses, street
connectivity, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, make walking, the use of
the bicycle and mass transit viable
transportation choices.
V Indirectly, TODs contribute to cleaner air
and water by reducing rates of household
pollution caused by auto use. ( See the
section on Air Quality ( below) in this chapter
for a more detailed discussion.)
These choices can then play an
important role in the improvement of
personal and public health. 24
The Value of Choice
TODs expand the range of
transportation options, and they also
offer access to a mix of employment,
retail, and leisure activities located in
proximity to transit stations and to
housing. This means that TOD
residents have additional choices
available to them regarding where
they live, work, shop, and recreate
which are not available to suburban
sprawl communities. Furthermore, if
TODs are implemented throughout a
region to create a nodal pattern of
transit- accessible activity centers,
the accessibility advantages
conferred to TOD residents and
workers increase substantially.
In the end, many factors combine to
affect where people will choose to
live, work, shop, recreate, and how
they access different activities. The
fact that some TOD residents may
not choose to work or shop in their
local community, or even to use
transit does not mean that they fail to
value the availability of multiple
transportation and land use options.
On the contrary, economists are
increasingly acknowledging that
merely providing transportation and
land use choices has inherent value
( which can be quantified), and that
this value can be substantial.
With respect to transit, for instance,
transit availability provides value by
acting as a hedge against events
that limit a traveler’s ability to use
automobiles, such as:
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 26
􀀗 Increases in fuel prices or other
costs that increase the cost of
owning or operating a car;
􀀗 Vehicles being unavailable or
broken down; or
􀀗 Loss of a person’s ability to
operate a vehicle.
In other words, people value a
transportation “ alternative”, even if
they do not plan to use it regularly, in
order to preserve their option to use
it. 25 Importantly, transit service is
generally assumed to provide more
“ option value” than additional road
capacity as it provides opportunities
for travel without driving or owning
an automobile, in inclement weather,
etc.
Enhanced Sense of Community
Current research indicates that
residents in suburban sprawl
neighborhoods no longer have a
strong ‘ Sense of Community’. 26
However, TOD provides for and
emphasizes public space that affords
residents with opportunities for face-to-
face contact while they walk within
the TOD. Because of this fact, TOD
encourages personal identification
with definable places, and therefore
fosters stronger ties within the
community. In his book Bowling
Alone, social scholar Robert Putnam
has documented the breakdown of
civil society in America as people
become more disconnected from
their neighbors, communities, and
families. Putnam contends that this
fragmentation threatens our health,
safety, and even our very
democracy. He contends that the
fragmentation is caused by several
factors, one of which is urban sprawl,
with its emphasis on private living
space in fringe areas and travel that
is conducted almost exclusively by
personal automobile. Furthermore,
this fragmentation occurs not only at
the community level, but also within
households. A body of research
indicates that workers who live in
sprawl- type neighborhoods have
more travel stress, 27 absenteeism
and turnover28 than workers who live
in denser, transit- supported
neighborhoods. TOD, therefore, can
strengthen family connections
because workers are more rested
after work due to a lower travel-related
stress load29.
In his work, Putnam describes the
basic, but important, principle that,
as people associate with one
another in various capacities,
whether it be on the sidewalk, at the
grocery store, or at the transit stop,
they form relationships that can be
relied upon to provide for personal
needs ( e. g., walking the dog,
babysitting) and to address broader
community problems, thereby
sustaining a higher quality of life for
everyone. Additionally, according to
Putnam, each relationship is an
asset, and the accumulation of these
assets forms each person’s or
communities " social capital." TODs
can therefore, promote community
building and the development of
social capital. VI
VI Other factors such as personal values,
residential turnover, and other demographic
variables will also affect social cohesion and
community building.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 27
“ 24- Hour” Places
Across the country, residents and
workers are increasingly seeking to
live and work in places that offer a
range of activities for more hours of
the day, a trend that has not gone
unnoticed in real estate development
circles. According to the “ Emerging
Trends in Real Estate 1999” report,
traditional 24- hour cities continue to
dominate the list of favored buying
markets for the second year in a row.
Furthermore, “ current and future
investors are advised to seek places
that have strong residential
fundamentals and multifaceted
environments”, which includes mass
transportation as an alternative to
automobile use. 30 More specifically,
younger people are migrating back
to urban cores for the excitement
they offer, while baby boomers are
relocating to urban cores for the
convenience and amenities that they
offer.
The report continues to say that,
“ Single- family homes are more
trouble to maintain than apartments,
and suburban traffic congestion has
become more aggravating, not to
mention time consuming. Who
needs the hassle? People want to
live closer to where they work and
play. Hectic lifestyles demand
convenience…. Whatever the
orientation, commercial real estate
markets will thrive if they have
attractive adjacent residential
districts.”
III. Reduced infrastructure capital and
operating costs
TODs can help reduce
infrastructure costs for local
governments by up to 25
percent through compact and
infill development.
Capital and operating costs for
infrastructure refers to construction
costs for roads, water and sewer
facilities, and public buildings, along
with the annual expenditures
required to maintain them. This topic
has received significant attention
from researchers documenting the
costs and benefits of alternative
development patterns. A review of
the literature indicates that
contiguous, compact development is
generally associated with
infrastructure costs that are 75- 95
percent of those for dispersed
development patterns ( e. g., 5- 25
percent lower). 31 The largest cost
savings ( 25 percent on average)
typically result from the reduced
need for multi- lane roads in denser
areas. VII These studies also estimate
the costs of providing water and
sewer to be 20 percent lower for
compact growth, and schools to be 5
percent less expensive, compared to
conventional “ sprawl” patterns.
Infrastructure costs for compact
development overall tend to be less
VII While many compact areas have more
roads than dispersed areas, these roads are
typically narrower ( 2 lanes) compared to
roads in less dense suburban areas ( 4 or
more lanes), with the result that net cost
savings are realized.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 28
than for dispersed low- density
development patterns because of
reduced infrastructure needs ( e. g.,
for roads, water mains, sewage
lines, etc.). In addition, the
segregation of land uses associated
with low- density development further
increases these costs because
parallel infrastructure systems often
have to be provided to individual
‘ scattered’ locations. Finally, the
fragmented governance which often
accompanies dispersed
development leads to duplicative city
halls, police stations, water/ sewer
treatment facilities, etc.
Operating costs for linear- based
infrastructure are directly related to
the amount of infrastructure services
that are provided. Thus, operating
costs begin to increase substantially
as additional infrastructure is
required to serve new dispersed
‘ sprawl’ development. In other
words, a given amount of
infrastructure can serve a greater
number of people, if those people
live, work and recreate in a compact
development. However, for other
types of infrastructure and services
( e. g., schools, police, fire, etc.),
research has found that operating
costs are highest in high and low-density
areas, and lowest in the
middle range of densities. VIII
VIII Complicating this analysis is the fact that
most high and low- density areas are
comprised of different types of residents
( e. g., cities have more households with
lower incomes, which may require additional
services). , There are also problems
comparing the quality of the services that
are received, which may take different
forms.
In addition, cost savings can
frequently also be realized in inner
city residential neighborhoods and
older commercial areas, which often
have significant amounts of
underutilized and substantial vacant
space available. These areas can
sometimes absorb small infill
developments with little to no public
capital expenditure because they
may be able to take full advantage of
existing infrastructure. Thus, limited
infill and redevelopment near transit
may be able to take advantage of
existing local sewer, water, and road
networks by using capacity that
would otherwise be idle. Conversely,
urban infill developments sometimes
need to upgrade aging or inadequate
water, sewage, or utility systems for
individual projects, which can add
significant costs to implementing
such projects.
Corroborating these findings is a
recently Costs of Sprawl - Revisited
Study, 32 which is a comprehensive
and current research on various
relationships between urban form
and numerous variables related to
resource consumption, travel
behavior, and public service costs. IX
More specifically, this study used
national data on 23 million
households and 50 million jobs, in
order to compare the impacts of
different development patterns for
every county in the United States
over a 25- year period.
IX The study also carefully controls for a wide
range of socio- demographic variables.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 29
To briefly summarize the study,
‘ uncontrolled’ growth was first
measured using projected
demographic and economic data and
‘ sprawling’ counties were identified
throughout the U. S.. X To estimate
the potential benefits of more
compact (‘ controlled’) development,
a scenario was created in which
sprawl- type growth was redistributed
within regional ‘ economic areas’
( EAs) as defined by the U. S. Census
Bureau. For this study, the
researchers assumed an objective of
reducing national sprawl by 25
percent. ( Please refer to Chapter 3
for more information about this
study.)
According to this study, about 40
percent of all statewide household
growth through 2025 is likely to
follow sprawl- type development
patterns under the ’ uncontrolled
growth’ scenario. At the county level,
six of the top 30 counties in the U. S
with higher rates of sprawl are
located in California. XI
However, California also ranks highly
with respect to its ability to potentially
redirect its future growth by
implementing TOD and other ’ smart
X “ Sprawl” refers to low- density, dispersed
development not easily accessed by transit
and not conducive to walking. Generally
speaking, significant sprawl was assumed to
occur when developing suburban, rural, and
undeveloped counties experience relatively
rapid housing and/ or employment growth,
acknowledging that low- density, sprawl type
development is probably occurring in many
urban areas as well.
XI These are: Riverside ( 4), San Bernadino
( 6), Solano ( 18), Ventura ( 23), Placer ( 27),
and Sonoma ( 28).
growth’ policies. This study estimates
that California could redirect over
800,000 future households to more
centrally located and/ or compact areas
that are better suited to accommodate
growth. This figure represents 66
percent of all growth projected to occur
under the ‘ uncontrolled scenario’,
ranking California second only to Hawaii
based on its potential for sprawl
reduction. At the county level, two of the
top 20 counties nationwide most able to
redirect future growth are in California. XII
By redirecting some of its future growth,
California could reduce the number and
size of water and sewer pipesXIII by over
840,000, or roughly 16 percent. This
translates to 25- year cost savings of
$ 746 million for water infrastructure and
over $ 1.3 billion for sewers. Most
significantly, California could reduce its
local road infrastructure by almost
35,000 lane miles, saving over $ 29
billion.
IV. Social Benefits
TOD can contribute to the
supply of affordable housing
by offering lower- cost housing
products and by reducing
household transportation
expenditures. In addition, by
bringing jobs and housing
closer together, TOD can help
address the growing
‘ jobs/ housing balance’
problem, which forces many
XII These are Stanislaus County ( 2) and San
Joaquin County ( 4) ( measured as a
percentage reduction)
XIII Water and sewer interceptors, or mains,
are connected to residential and non-residential
units by laterals.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 30
workers to commute to distant
job centers and reduces
employment opportunities for
transit- dependent workers.
Finally, TOD can promote
urban renewal and provide
reverse commute opportunities
from cities to the suburbs.
Affordable Housing
TOD can include a wide range of
housing types as a way to increase
residential density in the vicinity of
transit stations, and also as a
method to appeal to a wide range of
residents who may either require or
favor alternative modes of
transportation. This broad range of
housing options ( e. g., homes on
smaller lots, condominiums, town
homes, and apartments) is also
more suited to accommodate a
range of income levels than
conventional single family, large lot
housing developments. Indeed, this
is particularly important in light of
California’s current housing
affordability crisisXIV that places home
ownership beyond the reach of many
low and middle- income homebuyers
and even threatens to stifle
economic growth in some areas.
According to the California Building
Industry Association 33 and the
National Association of
Homebuilders:
XIV “ The three most serious impediments to
California’s continued economic growth are
housing, housing, and housing.” ( Ted
Gibson, Chief Economist, Calif. Department
of Finance)
􀀗 “ California is currently home to
the nation’s six most expensive
housing markets, XV and a family
earning the statewide median
income falls more than $ 38,000
short of affording the median-priced
home.”
􀀗 High technology employs almost
one million Californians, with
high tech products representing
54 percent of California’s
exports. The average high- tech
wage in California, Colorado,
and Texas is roughly equivalent
($ 60,000 - $ 66,000). However,
median home prices in California
are much higher than in those
states.
􀀗 Furthermore, the annual salary
for a kindergarten teacher in
Central Los Angeles falls more
than $ 64,000 short of qualifying
to buy a median- priced home. A
police detective in Palo Alto
requires another $ 150,000 in
annual salary to qualify for a
median- priced home.
The effect of this trend is that lower
and middle- income employees in
California increasingly are acquiring
housing at the fringe of the
metropolitan areas in which they
work. This requires these workers to
spend large amounts of time and
resources commuting to work and for
other purposes. Alternatively, many
of these people may choose more
XV Eight of the top ten, and 14 of the top 20,
after controlling for median family income
levels. ( Housing Opportunity Index, 2nd
Quarter 2000)
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 31
centrally- located housing if it were
available in order to avoid long,
congested commutes.
Many factors affect housing
affordability, and TOD by itself is not
a panacea to this complex problem.
TOD can, however, reduce the costs
of homeownership and renting in the
following ways:
􀀗 Real estate prices in California
are steadily on the rise. TOD
can provide a range of housing
products that consume less land
than conventional development,
and therefore have the potential
to lower housing costs. The
aforementioned Costs of Sprawl
– Revisited Study, for instance,
estimated that California could
reduce housing costs for land
and structures by $ 19,000 per
single- family detached home and
by $ 886 per multifamily unit by
adopting more compact growth
patterns, especially in central
locations. 34
􀀗 More compact development also
reduces public and private
infrastructure costs ( e. g., sewer,
power, water) per housing unit.
These savings can potentially
translate into reduced housing
costs, increased housing supply,
and lower infrastructure costs
overall for local jurisdictions. XVI
XVI However, if infrastructure in older central
areas is not adequate, costs could be higher
to improve or expand sewer, water, or utility
lines for individual infill projects.
􀀗 By making alternative modes of
travel ( i. e. transit, walking,
biking) feasible and convenient,
TOD residents are able to
reduce their levels of auto usage
and ownership, freeing $ 3,000 to
$ 4,000 of income for housing
and other purposes. XVII
Currently, the average
Californian spends
approximately one of every five
dollars on the ownership and
maintenance of an automobile. 35
Evidence from a variety of sources
indicates that people living in areas
with a mix of land uses, a high-quality
pedestrian network and good
transit service, have lower car
ownership and driving rates ( please
refer to Chapter 3 for more
information on this topic).
Promoting Jobs/ Housing Balance
A healthy jobs/ housing relationship is
generally considered to be two new
homes added for every three jobs
created. However, in many areas of
California, the jobs/ housing ratio is
acutely out of balance. For example,
in San Jose and Orange County,
there is approximately only one
housing unit available for every six
jobs. 36
Easing the jobs/ housing balance
problem is of critical importance in
the California’s large metropolitan
areas. By bringing jobs, housing,
and services closer together, and
linking them with transit, TOD- style
XVII See Section VII of this chapter,
‘ Reduced Energy Consumption’, for cost
savings estimate methodology.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 32
development can help mitigate the
so- called ‘ spatial mismatch’ problem.
A spatial mismatch occurs when jobs
are concentrated in distant locations
from housing. Often, these locations
are inaccessible to a high
percentage of lower- skilled, lower-income
workers who live in more
central areas. XVIII Linking accessible
housing, employment and other
activities with transit provides
increased mobility options.
Lower- income people, in particular,
may be dependent upon transit to
access work, shopping, leisure, and
other opportunities. However, many
of the newer suburban jobs and
services are not accessible by
transit. Over time, this mismatch
aggravates preexistent problems that
are related to concentrated
unemployment in urban
neighborhoods. Furthermore, spatial
mismatch can exacerbate labor
shortages in suburban locations by
effectively ‘ shutting out’ a large
portion of the entry- level workforce.
When TOD is implemented
comprehensively throughout a region,
the employment prospects of residents
in declining urban areas improve, as a
higher percentage of all regional jobs
XVIII In 1979, 74 percent of all U. S. office
space was found in central cities and only
26 percent was in suburbs. By 1999, the
central city share of office space declined to
58 percent, while the suburban share grew
to 42 percent. for example, while Los
Angeles has annexed many miles of
suburbs, it now only has 33 percent of the
region’s office space. ( The Brookings
Institution. Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy. “ Office Sprawl: The
Evolving Geography of Business.” October,
2000.)
are located around easily accessible
transit stations. In addition, TODs may
include other services that facilitate
participation in the job market ( e. g.,
daycare, job- training, educational
facilities). The end result is that job
opportunities for lower and middle
income workers increase as TODs
simultaneously bring jobs and
enhanced transit service to existing
urban neighborhoods. TODs also
distribute a higher percentage of the
region’s jobs around transit stations in
more peripheral locations -- making
the ‘ reverse commute’ a more feasible
option. XIX
While a complex mix of factors may
contribute to under- employment ( e. g.,
educational attainment, discrimination
and other circumstances), without the
ability to travel to jobs, many
underemployed residents who desire
to improve their financial condition
cannot do so.
Reducing Urban Decline
TOD is more frequently being used as
an economic development tool to help
reshape and revitalize existing urban
areas. It can also contribute to the
reversal of regional patterns of central
city decline and cyclic fiscal distress. XX
XIX Chapter 6 of this report summarizes how
TOD can increase local residential and
commercial property values. To keep TODs
affordable for lower income residents, many
developments also include subsidized
housing components.
XX TOD has been an important component
of strategies to revitalize areas in downtown
Portland, OR ( 1972 Downtown Plan),
Sacramento ( K Street Mall), San Francisco
( Embarcadero), & Washington D. C. ( MCI
Arena).
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 33
Importantly, downtown- oriented transit
investments make central business
districts more attractive to businesses
and to workers by increasing
transportation accessibility to more
distant locations. TOD then magnifies
the value of these investments by
locating more potential riders in close
proximity to the transit network. TODs
also improves the attractiveness of
urban areas by increasing local and
regional employment opportunities.
TODs also increase the physical
attractiveness and the feeling of ‘ well
being’ experienced by its residents, by
creating active public places that
enhance the actual, or even the
perceived level of public safety ( some
of these benefits are described in
other sections of this report).
Therefore, TOD may help to decrease
the societal costs of urban decline,
which are magnified by the
concentration of problems in older
parts of the region.
V. Economic Development
TOD can be a focus of economic
investments, so that scarce
funds are used efficiently and
effectively. By offering viable
transportation alternatives for
workers, TODs can help to
reduce the amount of time that
some workers spend in traffic,
and also help to reduce
congestion- related business
costs. Furthermore, TOD can
increase business opportunities,
and can be used as a tool to
create distinctive, marketable
communities with higher
property values and tax
revenues.
TOD as a Part of a Regional
Development Framework
In addition to generating value for local
residents and producing cost savings for
business, TODs offer an opportunity to
redefine where economic activity will
occur within the region and to implement
other regional goals. TOD typically
requires high- profile transit investments
that cross multiple jurisdictional
boundaries.
In Portland, Oregon, for instance, light
rail transit and TOD are being used to
define and serve compact, easily
accessible commercial centers, which
can become the focus of additional local
and regional economic and
development investment. XXI In
Portland’s case, TOD is also being used
to meet other planning objectives, such
as reducing regional sprawl and
increasing the supply of affordable
housing. Similarly, TOD can be
targeted towards underutilized or under-performing
areas when the goal is to
create job access for inner city
residents, or to increase property
values.
Other places that include TOD as part of
regional development strategies include:
􀀗 Washington D. C. ( Corridor and
Wedges Plan)
􀀗 Vancouver, British Columbia
( Regional Strategy)
􀀗 Charlotte, North Carolina ( 2025
Plan)
􀀗 Toronto, Ontario
XXI Portland’s Region 2040 Plan locates 60
percent of job growth and 40 percent of
household growth into centers and corridors
with high quality transit service. In addition
to encouraging transit use, this strategy also
preserves existing neighborhoods.
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 34
Importantly, because TOD can
simultaneously address the needs of
multiple constituent groups, it is
uniquely positioned to attract
investment from a broad array of
sources, such as redevelopment
boards, transit agencies, housing
groups, local and regional
governments, and business
associations. Furthermore, with
careful and coordinated planning,
investment from different sources
can be combined to create higher
levels of benefits than would
otherwise develop.
Reduced Congestion- Related
Business Costs
From 1980 to 1997 the number of
licensed drivers in California
increased by 31 percent, while the
number of highway lane miles
increased by only 5 percent. The
result of this situation has been an
increase of per lane traffic of about
66 percent. 37 In addition, from 1987
to 1998, the California Department of
Transportation estimated that the
amount of time vehicles are delayed
more than doubled on urban
freeways. 38
Because of the increase in
congestion, businesses incur
additional labor costs in order to
attract and retain workers. These
costs ( some of which are more easily
quantified than others) may include:
higher wages and benefits, shorter
workdays, increased absenteeism,
and transportation assistance.
􀀗 The California Department of
Transportation estimated that in
1990, more than 197,000 hours
per day were being lost due to
traffic congestion, costing
California businesses more than
$ 2 million per day.
􀀗 The San Francisco Bay Area
Economic Forum estimates that
local businesses there lose $ 2
billion per year while employees sit
in traffic congestion. 39
􀀗 The Texas Transportation Institute
estimates that commuters in the
Los Angeles region experienced
approximately 740 million hours of
delay due to traffic congestion in
1997 alone. 40 Combining this
assessment with a reasonable
estimate for the value of lost time
would result in cost savings
“ approaching or exceeding $ 10
billion per year”. 41
In congested metropolitan areas,
travel costs for workers can be very
large, and include:
􀀗 General aggravation and stress,
reducing work productivity and
increasing absenteeism and
health- care costs. 42
􀀗 The inability of some workers to
work a traditional 8 or 9- to- 5
schedule. While some workers
may prefer to work non- traditional
hours, many would prefer normal
working hours so their schedules
could align with those of family
and friends ( And many employers
require traditional work hours).
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 35
􀀗 Tardiness and work
rescheduling.
􀀗 For workers traveling on the job,
increased difficulty completing
tasks within schedule.
By offering opportunities for non-automobile
travel, however, TOD
can reduce the amount of time that
workers spend battling traffic
congestion and increase time for
work, leisure and other activities.
Surveys of business location
decision- makers increasingly list
travel mobility, among other quality
of life issues, on the list of critical
factors that are needed in order to
attract firms. 43
The Market Value of ‘ Walkability’
and Transit Accessibility
Pedestrian- oriented development
and easy transit access are
increasingly part of distinct, easily-recognizable,
and marketable places
that generate tax revenues. Several
studies have documented the market
value of community ‘ walkability’ and
transit access ( more detailed
information is available in the
Technical Appendix, pages 164-
172). These findings include: 44
􀀗 In New York, homes within 1,000
feet of a transit station were
found to have property values
$ 12,300 higher than similar
properties a block away.
􀀗 In Washington D. C., commercial
properties in close proximity to
transit stations charged $ 2 to $ 4
per square foot more than similar
properties located further from
transit.
􀀗 Properties in residential
communities that have access to
San Francisco Bay Area’s BART
heavy rail service increase $ 1.96
to $ 2.26 per square foot, on
average, for every three feet of
proximity to a rail station.
􀀗 In Portland, Oregon, properties
within walking distance of a light
rail station enjoyed rent
premiums of 10.6 percent.
􀀗 In Los Angeles, from 1980 to
1990, commercial space within a
half- mile of a rail corridor sold for
$ 31 per square foot more, on
average, than comparable space
outside the rail corridor. 45
􀀗 In San Diego, home sale prices
increased by $ 272 for every
decrease of 300 feet from a light
rail station. 46
􀀗 In San Jose, home sale prices
increased by $ 197 for every
decrease of 100 meters to a light
rail station.
􀀗 In Santa Clara County, office
space within a quarter- mile of a
transit station sold for $ 4.87 per
square foot more, on average,
than comparable space more
than three- quarters of a mile
from a station. 47
􀀗 A study of four new communities,
which were designed to promote
transit and pedestrian access,
found that buyers of single- family
SECTION 1: DEFINITION and BENEFITS of TOD
CHAPTER 2: What are the Benefits of TOD?
Statewide Transit- Oriented Development Study Page 36
homes were willing to pay
$ 20,000 more compared to
similar units in nearby areas. 48
According to the Real Estate
Research Corporation, real estate
values over the next 25 years will
rise fastest in ‘ smart communities’. A
smart community, by their definition,
is one that incorporates traditional
characteristics of successful cities by
including a mix of residential and
commercial uses combined in a
pedestrian- friendly configuration. 49
The market attractiveness of TOD is
particularly important for California,
where the high- technology sector
plays a primary role in state
employment. According to a 1998
report, 50 workers in the new
knowledge- driven, service- oriented
economy are particularly attracted to
places that have walkable
downtowns and a mix of restaurants,
offices and housing. These places
promote interaction, which is a key to
an economy that thrives on
accessibility, networking, and
creativity. Although technology now
allows firms to locate just about
anywhere, businesses continue to
highly value proximity to other firms,
suppliers, services, labor, and
amenities, along with the aggregate
benefits that result. XXII
XXII Agglomeration economies are cost
reductions that occur because economic
activity is carried out at one place.
Examples include shared infrastructure ( e. g.
parking), specialized labor, and specialized/
expensive equipment ( e. g. medical