Transit-oriented development has a long way to go

Much of the current TOD is poorly designed; a report recommends a series of steps to meet smart growth goals. The good news is that we’re mov-ing beyond the auto-oriented paradigm of the last half of the 20th Century, when commuter rail stations were built in the center of large surface parking lots. The bad news is what passes for transit-oriented development (TOD) these days is usually conventional-style development built adjacent to transit stations, according to a recent report by the Brookings Institution. For the all of the hype, very little TOD has been completed in the US that is truly walkable and achieves a balance of residential, commercial, workplace, and civic uses, the report, Transit-Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality, states. The authors, Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler of Strategic Economics, write that TOD offers substantial benefits, particularly in its potential to reduce automobile dependence. “Less automobile use means less consumption of fossil fuels, less air pollution, and lower spending on transportation,” the report states. Yet the authors add: “if the benefits of transit-oriented development are so compelling, why is the number of transit-oriented development projects still relatively small? And why do many of these projects seem to fall short of their potential?” Belzer and Autler argue there is still “widespread lack of understanding of (TOD’s) nature, its potential, the challenges it faces, and the tools needed to overcome these challenges.” Eras of development/transit relationship The report focuses mostly on rail transit, as opposed to bus service. The authors identify three distinct relationships between rail transit and development in the last century, starting with what they call “development-oriented transit” in the early part of the 20th Century. During that era, developers often built streetcar lines to add value to their developments. After World War II, the nation went through a period of “auto-oriented transit,” when the primary purpose of new commuter transit systems was to relieve automobile congestion, and stations were surrounding by parking lots. The authors characterize our current era as one of “transit-related development,” where development is adjacent to, but not well connected with, transit stations. We must move into the era of true TOD to fully realize the potential of the concept, they argue. The authors use the redevelopment of the Pleasant Hill BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station in Contra Costa County, California, soon to be under construction, as an example of a project that meets the definition of a real TOD. This project will turn what is currently a sea of parking into a regional node with office, residential, retail, and civic uses. It is designed in the form of a small neighborhood with blocks grouped around a central square fronting the station. benefits The Pleasant Hill project is expected to generate 52 percent fewer peak-period auto trips, and those trips will be shorter. The project will consume less land, generate less traffic, and cause less congestion and air pollution than a typical suburban development, the report states. (It should be noted that Strategic Economics was a consultant on the project). The Pleasant Hill plan, designed by Lennertz Coyle & Associates, offers a balance between “place” and “node,” one of the primary challenges facing TOD planners and developers, according to the authors. The central square, human-scale streets, neighborhood retail, connection to a regional bicycle trail, and plans for a civic building offer a strong sense of place for the residents and visitors to the project. Yet plenty of structured parking and 533,000 sq. ft. of office space will help turn the station into a regional node. To jump-start more TOD, Belzer and Autler recommend that a national development intermediary — a similar role that the Congress for the New Urbanism is playing for the New Urbanism movement in general — be formed to provide technical assistance to local governments and transit agencies. Such a group could provide a comprehensive typology of TOD projects for various station locations, and even establish a “TOD fund” to financially support projects that cannot obtain conventional financing. Among other strategies, transit agencies need to create plans around stations that recognize the crucial link between the station and surrounding land uses, the report notes. TOD planning should take place at a system-wide scale, assessing the needs and possibilities for development at each station site. Local governments also would be well advised to create TOD plans and the zoning to implement those plans, setting high standards for design while doing so. To download the entire 55-page report, go to www.brookings.edu.