Transit Oriented Development

“There have been constant halts and delays in our mobility program through the ages.  “You can’t get there from here” has been a continuing challenge in the world from the beginning.” George Mott – Transportation Century 

Transit Oriented Development

1.  Introduction

         In 1993, Peter Calthorpe established Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as an approach to mitigate the adverse effects of suburban sprawl.     His vision was to reestablish traditional civic life in America by developing neighborhoods around transit centers and restoring walkability in America’s fractured, urban landscape (Moral, 2009).  Today, Traditional-Oriented Developments have proven to be a viable solution in improving quality of life for American households by increasing access to transit (FTA, 2008).

         Transit-Oriented Development is a planning strategy, which focuses on fast, reliable transit that provides a service to other major employment, shopping, and entertainment centers (Tombari, 2005).  Transit stops are strategically located within the context of a community or neighborhood to encourage the use of public transit (The History of Transit-Oriented Development, n.d., 2011).  Furthermore, the transit stops should be within a 10-minute walk or one-quarter mile of residential units to be effective (Tombari, 2005).

            According to Moral, Transit-Oriented Design in essence is a by-product of Smart Growth Code and New Urbanism.  In fact, Smart Growth and TOD are essentially interchangeable (Moral, 2009).  However, although New Urbanist principles espouse the same philosophy as TOD principles, New Urbanist projects do not require transit (The History of Transit-Oriented Development n.d., 2011).

2.  History of Transit Oriented Development

            In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the railroad and streetcar suburbs served as the first transit-oriented development in larger metropolises throughout the United States, although, more common on the east coast.  Cities such as New York and San Francisco were able to serve remote suburban communities and small peripheral cities by commuter rail lines that were powered by steam engines.  The steam engines were able to accelerate to high speeds but could not decelerate expeditiously; therefore, stations had to be developed miles apart, thus the genesis of commuter suburbs.   By the late 1880s, electric street railways were developed.  Although electric streetcars could not reach the steam engines top speeds, streetcars proved to be more useful interurban due largely to its ability to start and stop easier.  Moreover, the streetcars were cleaner, quieter, and were equally effective as a commuter service as its counterpart (Vuchic, 1992; The History of Transit Oriented Development, n.d.). 

Construction of electric railway systems was typically privately funded, as developers built rail lines to outlying areas and used the railways to promote their real estate holdings. The first electric streetcar system was the Pacific Electric Railway in southern California, which at its peak, served 50 communities with 1,164 miles of track and 270 trains a day (Moses, et al., 2009).

By the turn of the century, southern California developed a vast network of lines in the East Bay commonly known as the “Key System.”  This extension of railway encouraged rapid development of remote communities in the Berkeley-Oakland Hills such as Piedmont to materialize (Moses, et al., 2009).  Many speculate that the development of streetcar, more than any other development, triggered the growth of America’s suburbs and the exodus of the middle-class seeking a better quality of life (Federal Transit Administration, 1993).

3.  America’s Transition        

            In the early twentieth century and during the dreadful years of the great depression, several contradicting visions for new towns began to emerge.  Tony Garnier developed the first concept of a modernist city using segregating methods and isolating uses while Ebenezer Howard and the Garden Cities (see Appendix A) movement was defining small towns around the proletariat.  These small towns espousing Howard’s ideas were built around rail stations, anchored by strong civic spaces and surrounded by large-scaled neighborhoods (Calthorpe, 1993).

            The modernist vision was expanded during the years of the great depression by Le Corbusier (see Appendix B) and Frank Lloyd Wright (see Appendix C), which influenced urban and suburban design patterns after World War II (Calthorpe, 1993).  The modernist principles of design further segregated land uses, revered the automobile, and valued private space over public space (Duany, et al, 2000).  Until this point in America’s history, the American urban landscape mostly comprised mixed-use development (Tombari, 2005).     

            New urbanists argue that the new towns and communities that sprang up during this era failed to evolve into vital communities.  Modern suburbs eroded the character of place by eliminating an identifiable edge, removing pedestrian scale, and allowing the automobile to dictate design patterns.  In short, modernist utopias created more problems rather than produce solutions for America’s fast-growing population (Calthorpe, 1993). 

4.  Characteristics of Transit Oriented Development

         In Transit Villages of the 21^st Century, Bernick and Cervero list the characteristics that Transit Oriented Development prides itself but certainly are not limited to.  Each of these congruently establishes vitality in American neighborhoods and began to encourage civic activity, reduce the dependence of the automobile, and promote livability.  These major characteristics are discussed further below (Bernick and Cervero, 1997).

4.1  Enhanced Mobility and Environment

transitorientedevelopment.org

Mixed-use, compact development anchored by transit stations is a major element of TOD.  Transit-Oriented Design offers a variety in housing types, open spaces, and a network of streets that include bike lanes, pedestrian paths and other types of transit.  By providing these amenities, TOD reduces automobile dependency, preserves our natural resources by requiring less land to develop, and promotes exercise (Bernick and Cervero, 1997).           

4.2  Pedestrian Friendliness

The Neighborhood Model:  Building Block for the Development Area - 2001

By focusing on the pedestrian and the promotion of civic activity Transit-Oriented Development principles encourage narrower streets lined with trees in order to reduce speed and wider, multi-use sidewalks to encourage pedestrian traffic.  Furthermore, it removes surface parking lots and decreases building setbacks, which creates a more comfortable environment for the pedestrian.  Much like Smart Growth principles, TOD neighborhoods generally consist of mixed-use buildings complete with residential, retail, and commercial uses (Bernick and Cervero, 1997).

4.3  Alternative Suburban Living and Working Environments

                                 Courtesy of The Next American Metropolis – Peter Calthorpe

Incorporating mass transit allows people to live in the suburbs while simultaneously reducing the need of the automobile to connect them to desired goods, services, and activities within the urban core.  TOD also allows American families more flexibility with their income completely removing the need of purchasing an automobile if it does not fit into their family budget.  With rising cost of owning an automobile, it is important to reduce the need of private transportation, and further promote public transit.  Additionally, the pedestrian oriented scale encourages social activity and injects a sense of pride into the neighborhood (Bernick and Cervero, 1997).

4.4  Neighborhood Revitalization

                   Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States:  A Literature Review - 2002

There are many ways to revitalize a blighted neighborhood, but it is highly touted that TOD can bolster a wrecked neighborhood by implementing mass transit.  Increasing connectivity improves the social and physical landscape that was once fractured thus becoming a beacon of hope for other struggling neighborhoods.  TOD encourages positive growth by demanding new housing for a range of incomes and connects the community to other services (Bernick and Cervero, 1997).

4.5  Public Safety

cvillearts.org

TOD creates a place that is energetic and full of diversity blending residential, retail and commercial in one place.  The bustling neighborhood puts people on the streets; therefore, puts eyes on the streets, which gives these communities a sense of security due to constant activity (Bernick and Cervero, 1997). 

4.6  Public Celebration

                                                                      

http://my.hsj.org/

 

TOD is a by-product of Smart Growth principles, which require public open-spaces.  The open-spaces can range from plaza to park and will serve a host of outdoor activities such as farmer’s markets, concerts, or festivals.  These types of activities bring the community together for healthy social interaction (Bernick and Cervero, 1997). 

5.  Conclusions

            Currently there are 100 Transit-Oriented Developments existing in the United States, and these types of developments are gaining momentum across the country.  TOD is very effective if designed properly and if local/regional economic conditions are favorable.  Additionally, because the number of concerns over property values and denser development, community outreach and involvement is necessary to gain support (Moral, 2009).

            As transportation costs continue to rise due to the cost of oil, TOD are increasingly becoming recognized as a practical solution to mitigate energy costs and reduce automobile dependency.  This fact is very attractive to many communities looking for ways to preserve resources, specifically lower-income families whose budgets may not allow them to afford an automobile (FTA, 2008).  According to Moral, TOD can vary in form and scale, from high-density urban development to lower-density single-family neighborhoods; however, the success of TOD is not determined by implementing transit in a dense neighborhood.  Additionally, TOD should create a vibrant, livable community that evokes pride in the neighborhood as well as blend with the existing urban fabric (History of Transit-Oriented Development, n.d.).

Smart growth and transit-oriented development are important strategies for planning development while addressing a myriad of social, fiscal, and environmental issues. These include climate change, local air quality, automobile dependence, housing affordability,                                public health, and mounting infrastructure costs. While smart growth and TOD can only yield incremental annual change in development density and other indicators of compact                                     development, over the long term, there is great potential for compact development to become the predominant development type by the middle of this century, achieving important gains in the issues mentioned above (Moral, 2009).

            Transit-Oriented Development does not come without its critics nor is it devoid of heavy scrutiny.  Implementation costs, property value, density and crime concerns are a few problems that TOD encounters with the general public as well as local government and municipalities.  With the lack of public transit in many of the suburbs, retrofitting sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and access to other transit options can be taxing on city budgets.  Additionally, suburbia offers many American homeowners private space and

many other amenities that some consider achieving the “American Dream.”  Furthermore, Moses argues that private transportation is readily obtainable to a majority of Americans; therefore, transit is not a priority (Moses, 2009).

            In conclusion, there is a plethora of supporting information that Transit-Oriented Developments can be a valuable solution to mitigating high-energy costs, creating livable communities that offer transit options, and increase vitality in American neighborhoods.  However, despite the growing desire for Transit-Oriented Developments, the common theme that continues to be an obstacle for this type of development is cost, awareness, and policy, until these are resolved, planners and designers will have a tough sell.   

6.  Appendix

A. 

Ebenezer Howard - Garden City

B.

Le Corbusier - Modern City

C.

Frank Lloyd Wright - Modern City

D.

7.  Bibliography

           

Bernick, Michael and Robert Cervero. (1997). Transit Villages in the 21st Century (New York: McGraw Hill, 1997).

Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis : ecology, community, and the American dream / Peter Calthorpe, New York : Princeton Architectural Press, c1993.

Cervero, R., C. Ferrell, et al. (2002). "Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States:  A Literature Review."  Research Results Digest(Number 52).

Albemarle, C. o. (2001). THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL:  BUILDING BLOCK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS. D. o. P. a. C. Development. Albemarle.

           

Dinep, C. and K. Schwab (2010). Sustainable Site Design. Hoboken, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, et al. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York, North Point Press.

           

Duany, A., J. Speck, et al. (2010). The Smart Growth Manual. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Ewing, R., R. Pendall, et al. (2003). "Measuring Sprawl and Its Transportation Impacts." Transportation Research Record 1831(1): 175.

Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature. Hoboken,             John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

           

Federal Transit Administration. (1993). Transit-Supportive Development in the U.S.Washington, D.C.

Federal Transit Administration. (2008). Better coordination of transportation and housing programs to promote affordable housing near transit [electronic resource] : a report to Congress from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC : U.S. Dept. of Transportation : U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, [2008].

Moral, S. M. D. and S. Evergreen State College. Graduate Program in             Environmental (2009). Transit-oriented development in Renton, Washington.

Moses, S., C. A. Lewis, et al. (2009). Moving toward implementation : an             examination of the organizational and political structures of transit-oriented development. Houston, Tex., Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Training and Research, Texas Southern University.

Mott, G. F. (1967). Transportation Century. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State             University Press

           

Steiner, F. and K. Butler (2007). Planning and Urban Design Standards.Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons.

Thadani, D. A. (2010). The Language of Town & Cities - A Visual Dictionary. New York, Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.

The History of Transit Oriented Development. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2011, from http://transweb.sjsu.edu.

Tombari, E. (2005). "Smart Growth, Smart Choices Series: Mixed-Use             Development." National Association of Home Builders.

Tumlin, J., A. Millard-Ball, et al. (2003). "How to make transit-oriented                development work: number one: put the transit back." Planning 69(5):14-19.

           

Vuchic, Vuchan (1992), “Urban Passenger Transportation Modes,” Public          Transportation, Gray and Hoel (ed,). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.