“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 21st
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.
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.
