An Examination of Transit Oriented Development

UP250 Transportation and Land Use

Winter 2015

Taylor

Ryan Sclar

March 12, 2015

1

Introduction

Planners are charged with the task to find answers to the problems inherent in cities.

While the proliferation of the private automobile over the past century has provided people

with newfound accessibility and autonomy, vehicles confound congestion problems, pollute the

air, and encourage sprawl. In response to these negative consequences, planners often aim to

decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT) while concurrently promoting economic development

and increased standards of living.

The concept of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) exemplifies planners strive to rein

in cars and promote higher living ideals. Originally coined by Peter Calthorpe in the late 1980’s,

TOD calls for centering communities on rail stations in an attempt to decrease auto-

dependency and create a sense of

community (Carlton, 2009); (Figure

1). TOD projects aim to channel

urban growth into developments

with compact city centers,

diversities of housing and business

options, mixed-use buildings, and

streets which prioritize active

transportation (such as walking

and cycling); (Loukaitou-Sideris, et. al, 1996). TOD, as well as the sister concepts of new

urbanism and traditional neighborhood development attempt to recreate the classic

neighborhood environments established in the pre-car era.

Figure 1: An Early TOD Design Rendering Source: Calthorpe, 1993

2

Over the past several years, TOD has become one of the most popular planning

concepts. TOD locations exist, to varying degrees, in practically every major metropolitan region

in the United States as well as internationally. The concept continues to gain popularity and

projects are expanding in number and scope. This report examines how TOD has and has not

come true on its promises to attract people and decrease automobile use. Based on these

findings, this study provides recommendations on how to best guide and design future TOD

projects.

Attracting Residents and Businesses

The Role of the Government

As with other developments, TOD will only be successful if it is economically viable. TOD

projects must financially pencil out if they are to attract residents and especially businesses.

Planners often view rail stations as a catalyst to spur development, however, these transit

centers often fail to promote much activity. Transit lines are commonly built on cheaply

acquired abandoned industrial rail corridors, outside of activity centers (Loukaitou-Sideris, et.

al, 1996). In such cases, “…growth and development around station areas does not simply

happen through the mere presence of a transportation network. (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013, p.

24)” When TOD cannot float on its own, it will only attract people with public investment or

subsidies; low interest loans, tax exempt financing, and rent subsidies may be necessary to

entice people to live and work in a TOD (Loukaitou-Sideris, et. al, 1996). This is particularly

important in attracting residents of lower socioeconomic status. Without the appropriate

financial support new urbanist developments will flounder.

3

In addition to monetary assistance, the government must also provide political support

if a TOD is to draw activity. Many of the features of TOD which set it apart from other

development projects are incongruent with traditional zoning ordinances (National Research

Council). TOD attempts to mimic the urban form of historic neighborhoods, communities which

were constructed with fewer governmental zoning restrictions. To achieve this goal, TOD must

also confine less to such policies. For example, mixed-use variances, increased floor area ratios,

reduced parking minimums, fewer open-space requirements, and higher density allowances all

need to be approved by the government in order to maximize the potential of a TOD to attract

residents and businesses (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013). In areas where TOD is opposed by

neighborhood organizations or not backed by regional policy, this necessary government

support can be difficult to achieve (National Research Council). Under such circumstances, TOD

diminishes its advantages over standard development and thus attracts fewer residents and

businesses.

Demographic Selection

Most scholars agree that self-selection bias in housing and office preferences exists, but

its extent and influence on TOD is debated. Residents in TOD communities do drive less and

walk more than average (Handy, et. al, 2005). Some argue however, that this correlation chiefly

exists because residents who decide to live in TOD communities want to drive less and walk

more. According to Levine, 1999, not only is self-selection a factor in attracting people to TOD,

but it is the “prime process” in doing so (Levine, 1999, p. 19). Others disagree, conceding that

self-selection bias does occur, but stating that its role is minimal and doesn’t thwart the

4

purpose of TOD (Chatman, 2009); (Crane, 1998). If preferences do play a large role, the utility of

TODs may be minimal, since the majority of Americans prefer to reside in single-family,

suburban environments (Gordon, et. al, 1997).

TODs may only attract new residents and businesses at the expense of existing tenants

and shops. Developers sometimes hesitate to invest in TODs because of the perception of a

narrow market, served primarily by young urban professionals and urbanistas, not mainstream

families (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013). New urban developments often furnish high rents, which can

force out smaller businesses and poorer residents. In some cases, if poorer residents without

automobile access are replaced by higher income individuals, TOD can actually have a negative

impact on local business activity (Kahn, 2007). The aims of TOD to influence the built

environment of a neighborhood can also impact its demographic makeup.

Influencing Travel

The role of the Built Environment

Streetscapes promoted by TOD encourage active transportation. The number one factor

influencing pedestrian activity is the state of the built environment. Areas which are clean, with

diverse housing, sufficient shade, outward facing businesses, limited lot lines, and few parking

lots attract more pedestrian activity (Handy, et. al, 2005). “All else equal, people walk more if

they move to a more attractive neighborhood. (Handy, et. al, 2005, p. 20)” These features also

promote more bicycling, although to a smaller extent. TOD street design can be very successful

in increasing pedestrian and bicycle activity.

5

While TOD promotes walking and bicycling trips, it has negligible influence on vehicle

use. It may seem intuitive that more biking and walking correspond to less driving. There is,

however, no credible evidence which supports this claim. In fact, Chatman, 2008, concluded

that policies which promote walking have no independent effect on reducing driving in TODs.

The details of a streetscape are much more important in attracting pedestrians than they are in

discouraging drivers (Handy, et. al, 2005).

Not only does streetscape design have no effect on driving trends, attempts to improve

connectivity in TOD street patterns can actually increase VMT. Connected streets bring origins

and destinations closer together (National Research Council). While this encourages active

transportation, it also makes streets more accessible for automobile travel. “Shorter car trips

can mean more trips and more miles. (Crane, 1998, p. 6)” When examined independently, the

built environment of TODs does not reduce VMT and may actually increase it in some cases.

TOD and Public Transit

Proximity to rail

access is a hallmark of

TOD, but not a

particularly influential

factor in determining

travel behavior. TOD

sometimes promotes

transit stations as the Figure 2: A TOD Rail station with no passengers in Phoenix Source: www.valleymetro.org

6

glue which binds the community together. Like churches in medieval cities, transit stations are

at the center of TOD neighborhoods - a sacred and crucial node for community vitality and

activity. While it is true that residents in TOD developments tend to own fewer cars and take

more multimodal trips, little of this can be explained by the presence of a rail station (Chatman,

2013). In fact, vehicle ownership rates depend more on parking availability, dwelling sizes, and

even bus service, than on access to a rail station (Chatman, 2013). Rail service only provides

adequate service for trips which originate and end within close proximity to a station. When a

rail line is successful in connecting areas with densities of jobs and people it will attract more

riders (Guerra, et. al, 2013). As described above, rail lines are often built on the right of ways of

abandoned freight tracks, through areas of industrial zoning with little residential or

commercial liveliness (Loukaitou-Sideris, et. al, 1996). Even when rail is successful in connecting

centers of activity, the number of destinations is still limited, especially in polycentric cities with

diverse origins and destinations. Most of the potential benefits of TOD do not stem from

proximity to a rail station.

TOD and Automobiles

There is a complicated relationship between TOD and vehicle usage. Residents of old,

traditional neighborhoods drive 18% fewer miles than their suburban counterparts (Handy, et.

al, 2005). “People who live in densely-developed, transit-served neighborhoods with shops and

services near their homes tend to… own and use autos less…” (Chatman, 2009, p. 4) The

essence of TOD is to emulate these dense, transit rich, lively neighborhood environments of the

tradition communities as described above. Studies show, however, that TOD often fails to

7

decrease vehicle usage, and sometimes VMT can even increase (Crane, 1998); (Chatman, 2013).

When it comes to automobiles, there commonly exists a disconnect between the aims and

outcomes of these new urbanism projects.

Density in TODs does play a role in curtailing driving habits, but its influence is limited.

High density is often viewed as the answer to making roads less conducive to driving (Crane,

1998). It is true that the creation of high-density development without a concurrent change in

transportation infrastructure will increase congestion and driving costs (Loukatiou-Sideris,

2013). In many TODs, however, density is accompanied by road network capacity

improvements as mandated through LOS standards and minimum parking requirements. Under

such policies, an increase

in density does not

correspond strongly with

a drop in vehicle usage.

A 100% increase in

residential density may

only lower household

VMT by 5% to 12%

(National Research

Council). Even in an area

with strong TOD features, it is unlikely that doubling density will result in more than a 25%

reduction in VMT.

Figure 3: Wilshire Blvd. – An example of high density with high VMT Source: www.thewilshirecorridorblog.com

8

For TOD to decrease vehicular travel, driving must be made slow and expensive. Travel

mode is most fundamentally influenced by time and price (Okitsu, et. al, 2014). When policies

promote free off-street parking and mandate congestion mitigation, vehicle travel is fast and

cheap. This encourages people to drive. Even when TOD features compact city centers, bicycle

infrastructure, easy transit access, and pedestrian prioritized streets many residents will still

elect to drive if vehicle travel is made easy. Simply put, it is lowering the utility of driving, not

raising the utility of driving alternatives which is most influential in decreasing automobile

usage (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013).

TOD will also only reduce automobile traffic if origins and destinations are matched

within proximity to each other. Regardless of road speeds and driving prices, residents are

more likely to drive when traveling farther distances (Chatman, 2008). For TOD projects, local

trips to run errands may be advantageous without a vehicle, but accessing large retail and

employment centers will likely still require driving. In suburban settings, many of the trips taken

by residents in TODs may require long automobile trips. In fact, Chatman, 2008, finds a strong

correlation between VMT and proximity to the city center. TOD in outlying areas of a city may

produce more VMT than urban infill TOD, even if they produce fewer trips (Chatman, 2008).

Even well planned TODs will not reduce VMT unless destinations are close together and

accessible by alternative transportation modes.

9

Recommendations

Based on the findings above, the following acknowledgments must be considered when

examining the viability of a TOD project:

TOD must have proper financial backing to attract activity

o TOD must pencil out if it is to attract developers, residents and businesses. When

necessary, local governments must be willing to offer economic incentives to spur

activity.

TOD must be supported by congruent land use and zoning policies in order to truly fulfill its

aim at creating traditional neighborhood environments

o If policies require minimum parking, congestion mitigation, density limitations, land

use separations, and building setbacks, TOD will not be able to curtail driving and

recreate the environment necessary to promote lively streets.

Transit ridership is often increased in by TOD, but not always, and not because it is centered

around a transit station

o In order for TOD to promote transit ridership it must be linked to service which

connects to a diverse range of destinations. Rail service often only connects with

limited coverage areas, especially when traveling on old freight rights of ways which

do not lie adjacent to activity centers.

10

TOD does promote active transportation but will not independently decrease vehicle use

o The built environment promoted through TOD concepts does attract more

pedestrian and bicycling activity, however it does little to affect the utility of driving.

TOD will be much more successful in attracting people and decreasing automobile use if

integrated with surrounding urban environment

o TOD developments do not provide access to all of the services and amenities which

are required by residents. Therefore, people who live in TOD will commonly need to

leave the development to access jobs, commercial centers, and recreational

facilitates. If TOD is not well connected with the rest of the region, it will attract less

people and require longer, more auto-dependent trips.

The most effective way for TOD to decrease automobile use is to make driving slow and

expensive

o TOD developments will not reduce driving if they provide ample free parking and

uncongested streets.

11

Conclusion

As with many other aspects of planning, there is no cookie cutter model for producing

successful TOD. While it is true that few TOD developments realized all of the goals they aspire

to achieve, few have also proven to be complete failures. Analysis of the literature

surrounding TODs suggests some crucial elements which are necessary and often overlooked in

creating effective communities. For Southern California, particularly Los Angeles (with the

highest density of any American urbanized area) TOD projects can benefit from relatively high

density and proximity to locations which already exists near some of the region’s rail stations.

TOD, however, is not a concept which can be implemented everywhere, not even at many

transit stations. If planners can learn from the successes and mistakes of previous projects, TOD

can still be promoted as a power tool for creating activity centers and decreasing automobile

use.

12

Bibliography

Calthorpe, Peter. The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. Princeton Architectural Press, 1993.

Carlton, Ian. Histories of Transit-oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the

TOD Concept: Real Estate and Transit, Urban and Social Movements, Concept Protagonist. University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 2009.

Chatman, Daniel G. "Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity and price effects

on household non-work travel." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42.7 (2008): 1008-1030.

Chatman, Daniel G. "Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail

access." Journal of the American Planning Association 79.1 (2013): 17-31.

Chatman, Daniel G. "Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: evidence using new data and methods." Environment and planning. A41.5 (2009): 1072.

Crane, Randall. "Travel by design?." ACCESS Magazine 1.12 (1998).

Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. "Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?." Journal of the American planning association 63.1 (1997): 95-106.

Guerra, Erick, and Robert Cervero. "Is a Half-Mile Circle the Right Standard for TODs?." ACCESS

Magazine (2013).

Handy, Susan, and Patricia Mokhtarian. "Which Comes First: The Neighbourhood or The Walking?." ACCESS Magazine 1.26 (2005).

Kahn, Matthew E. "Gentrification Trends in New Transit‐Oriented Communities: Evidence from

14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems." Real Estate Economics 35.2 (2007): 155-182.

Levine, Jonathan. "Access to choice." ACCESS Magazine 1.14 (1999). Loukatiou-Sideris, Anastasia. "Opportunities and Challeneges for TODs in Southern

California." ACCESS Magazine (2013).

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. "There's No There There: or why neighborhoods don't readily develop near light-rail transit stations." Access9 (1996).

13

National Research Council. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. (2009).

Okitsu, Walter, Gibson, Patrick. “C&EE 181 Lecture 3a Traffic Control Devices.” UCLA. Oct. 2014.