Transit Oriented Development. PB PlaceMaking Group RTD Planning & Development Committee May 4, 2010

Transcription

1 Transit Oriented Development Peer Agency State of the t th Practice GB Arrington PB PlaceMaking Group RTD Planning & Development Committee May 4, 2010

2 TOD State of the Practice Overview 1. How does RTD compare to its peers Survey + case studies 2. Trends within the industry 3. Implications for the future

3 Transit Agency TOD State-of-the the practice Broadly stated 4 kinds of agencies 1. Doing little with TOD 2. Conventional TOD program 3. Hybrid: trending to expansive program 4. Expansive TOD program RTD is somewhere between 2 & 3

4 Defining Terms: TOD & JD Two types of projects: Transit-Oriented Development Area w/in a 5 minute walk of station Santa Ana TOD Public + private land Joint Development On publicly owned land Primarily with rail systems Santa Ana Joint Development

5 TOD Policy Evolution No national standard for success Traditional measure Ridership + revenues Evolving measures reflect new transit role From people moving to community building trip not taken Leverage livable communities

6 Conventional Role in TOD Joint Development Agency land at station (+/- 5 acres) Education/ advocacy / funding Education: transportation impacts of land use decisions Advocacy: argue for good outcomes Funding: target resources The T in TOD Dallas / San Diego / Los Angeles examples

7 Expansive Role in TOD TOD (v. JD) Focus on station area 125 acres (1/4 mile of station) Partner/ fund/ participate in TOD Shape land to be transit friendly Encourage affordable housing Leverage livable communities principles BART / Portland examples Washington / Seattle trending to expansive

8 TOD Evolution As systems expand typical they reexamine role of TOD Initial system: TOD often secondary Expansion: role of TOD expands Dallas: suburban cities doing TOD Portland: transit agency + partners Cities advocates for larger view Livable communities Affordable housing

9 Dallas Opened 1996 $4.7B in TOD 45 miles* 4 extensions by k daily rail riders CONVENTIONAL TOD *Does not include newest lines

10 Dallas A bit psychophrenic Suburbs embrace TOD City of Dallas has not Conventional role: Educate / advocate / fund Eastside Transit Village

11 San Diego Opened in 1984 First new US LRT 5 extensions 96.6 miles of LRT 84k daily rail riders TOD at 15 of 49 stations CONVENTIONAL TOD LRT

12 Los Angeles 6 rail lines / 71 stations 300k daily rail ridership 12 JD projects 1.5m sq 1800 units $40b expansion program CONVENTIONAL TOD

13 Los Angeles: Internal Focus Emphasis: JD of Metro land What happens after the land is gone? Virtually no TOD planning in LA TOD Planning framework City of Los Angeles Land Use Transportation Policy, 1993

14 Portland 6 LRT lines 45 miles Urban street car 5 miles 5 miles under construction 10 mile commuter rail 100k+ daily rail ridership Over $11B in TOD EXPANDED TOD

15 Portland TOD Journey Evolution TOD an after thought with 1 st line Policy & design focus subsequently Livable communities emphasis Trip not taken Write down land value for TOD Historically minimal park-n-ride ride 130 stops / <10,000 spaces TOD without t replacement parking

16 San Francisco 104 miles 43 stations 350k daily riders 18 TODs $2.7 billion Aggressive regional TOD planning EXPANDED TOD

17 BART: 2005 Policy Shift MovedfromJDtoTOD Work proactively with cities Shift access approach 1:1 parking replacement was major barrier Jointly offer land with partners New geographic focus /partnerships Pleasant Hill Master Plan

18 Seattle LRT, streetcar + commuter rail ST2 $18B expansion plan Renewed focus on TOD Managing TOD planning Affordable TOD being built TOD strategic plan underway HYBRID TOD

19 Washington, DC 80+ stations 103 miles 750k+ daily rail ridership 52 JD projects $7m in annual revenues market value $4b* Majority of all trips in the District are non-auto HYBRID TOD *as of 2003

20 Washington, DC Evolution to TOD from JD Partnership implications Station access & retrofit 50,000+ park-n-ride spaces Major challenges: internal silos & parking replacement New Carrollton TOD Master Plan

21 Peer Survey: TOP Line Findings RTD TOD looks like most agencies On the policy scale you are conventional Policy areas to explore Geographic focus of TOD Replacement parking Livability principles Affordable housing

22 RTD & 12 Peers RTD Yes Peers* H ave d e dicat e d TOD s t a ff Yes 12 0 In-house real estate department Yes 10 2 P rovide TOD technical assistance Yes 10 2 Comment on development plans Yes 10 2 Cooperative agreements on TOD Yes 6 6 Acquired land for TOD No 4 8 TOD beyond agency land Yes 12 0 U sed a g ency land for TOD Yes 9 3 Used eminent domain for TOD No 2 10 Less than 1:1 parking replacement No 8 3 Encourage affordable housing Yes 7 5 Write down land for TOD No 2 9 Charge for parking Yes 2 9 * Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake, Seattle, Washington, DC NO

23 RTD & TriMet RTD TriMet Have dedicated TOD staff Yes Yes In- house real estate department Yes Yes Provide TOD technical assistance Yes Yes Comment on development plans Yes Yes Cooperative agreements on TOD Yes No Acquired land for TOD No Yes TOD invol vement be y ond a g ency land Yes Yes Used agency land for TOD Yes Yes Used eminent domain for TOD No Yes Less than 1:1 parking replacement No Yes Encourage affordable housing Yes Yes Write down land for TOD No Yes Charge for parking Yes No

24 Parking & Station Environment Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis downplayed parking as a mode of access Denver parking oriented system Development Oriented Transit Design Automobile Oriented Transit Design

25 Some Implications for TOD 1:1 parking replacement financial challenge Development can t cover the costs Creates auto-oriented place Redevelopment of parking to TOD rare Neighborhood & FTA issues Trend is to replace at less than 1:1 Portland, BART, Salt Lake, Seattle, Washington, DC MARTA recommending

26 Livable Communities Community building + people moving Aligns with local government interest in TOD & new federal initiatives / funding More emphasis on community wide impacts TOD & affordable housing Leverage local plans Partnerships

27 Conclusions RTD in middle of spectrum on TOD Opportunity to go further Local gov ts pushing TOD FasTracks moving from planning to implementation Supportive federal policy Real estate market pause 41 st & Fox Station Area Plan

28 Conclusions Broad policy choices on future shape of TOD Stay where you are Expand your role in TOD Geographic focus of TOD Replacement parking Livability principles Affordable housing Arvada Station Area Plan