Oct. 24, 2024
Planning initiatives are often reinvented — sometimes with new nomenclature — to adapt to current conditions and parameters. That's certainly the case with transit-oriented development (TOD). Consider the original streetcar suburbs of the early 1900s: They reflect some of the same principles as TOD, with compact development built near streetcar intersections to accommodate commuters using the new electric-powered streetcar system to travel to work.
Regardless of the name, TOD remains impactful — providing a lower-cost way of life for households, reducing emissions by leveraging mass transit use, and creating a strong sense of community. But sometimes the guidelines for a planning approach like TOD need to be revisited. Doing so can provide valuable lessons, enabling planners to adjust to ever-changing dynamics and policies.
While fast-growing parts of the country like Atlanta and Northern Virginia have seen successful examples of new development near stations, slow-growth metro regions — including those where an existing low-density urban fabric and a reliance on automobile commuting predominates — continue to face challenges to implementation. There are many lessons planners can draw from years of TOD efforts, especially in regions with slower growth, specifically as it applies to the potential for new mixed-use development.
And planners can lead TOD initiatives by carefully considering the realities of real estate investment, housing needs and supply, and neighborhood form, as well as the appetite for policy changes. One of the central goals of TOD is to provide affordable housing with easy access to transit — an admirable objective that planners should continue to pursue.
Stategic, system-wide planning
The context for TOD is often complicated. What makes sense in a rapidly expanding Sunbelt city might not make sense in a stabilized mid-tier town. While TOD design attributes like walkability and thoughtful planning of the public realm should always be encouraged, strategic consideration of which stations, and how many, might be able to support new mixed-use development should be considered in light of overall growth patterns and real estate conditions. If the metropolitan region is not growing, the jurisdiction may be displacing new development from one area to another.
When ranking potential TOD locations within a system, it is important to look beyond basic typologies like suburban, urban core, or neighborhood, and evaluate the overall context of each site within the individual transit system. Planners must also consider the overarching economic context of the metropolitan area.
Modern transit infrastructure often follows old streetcar rights-of-way (ROW) in Pittsburgh. Photo from Robert G. Pflaum Slide Collection.
If the existing ROW runs through residential areas, weaving in new development can be difficult. Photo courtesy Patty Folan.
In Pittsburgh, the light rail system grew out of the old trolley network and runs through first-ring suburban areas to the south, with stops less than a mile apart in some places. From a TOD perspective, some station locations are challenged by proximity to — and competition from — existing commercial corridors, so the number of stations that can support TOD becomes an important question.
In other instances where the commercial market is overbuilt, planners might shift their focus to building new mixed-income housing without commercial. Other situations might call for smaller-scale, lower-density TOD.
In Cleveland, a partnership between the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization and the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) resulted in the development of Aspen Place, an affordable apartment complex. Given its adjacency to transit, strict parking requirements were loosened, and residents of the small-scale TOD project of 40 units have access to an extensive bike network and receive free RTA passes.
Rethinking TOD at the station level
In older cities, mass transit lines are sometimes configured within the planned rights-of-way of existing railroad lines, which make sense for freight logistics, but might not always align with new development opportunities.
The East Busway in Pittsburgh, which shares a right-of-way with CSX, runs the gamut of land uses, often flanked by the steep topography of the hillside neighborhoods for which the region is known. As a result, transit stations can be isolated. An example is Negley Station, which is cut off from the neighboring Centre Avenue commercial corridor by the CSX line.
The East Busway in Pittsburgh shares the right-of-way with a freight rail company. At Negley Station, the rail line creates a physical barrier between the transit stop and nearby retail and services. Photo courtesy of Patty Folan.
Local market and site conditions will always matter when new mixed-use and higher-density development is desired. Even if the regional market is strong, transit locations in economically distressed areas remain problematic in terms of TOD, primarily due to a lack of interest by potential funders and preconceived notions about the viability of these locations.
Each station situation is unique, and any analysis should always be considered in light of local knowledge and vision. Some general filters and questions can help, especially in regions that are not growing. Not all of these conditions must exist, but each has a role to plan in planning and decision-making.
1. Look for arterial road visibility
Historic development patterns, like those in Pittsburgh, can lead to transit sites that are hidden, which is challenging for retail operators. Businesses could struggle if commuters are their primary customers. If retail is included in the mix, locate it on sites where noncommuters will see it, including along high-visibility or high-traffic roads. This is especially important at stations outside the urban core.
2. Establish consistency with surrounding neighborhoods
Most TOD guidelines recommend higher density development adjacent to the station, but that higher density might actually make sense further from the station core, along or adjacent to an existing commercial corridor. Regardless of the station site location, new development patterns should respect the existing urban fabric.
3. Assess and foster local government support
New development near a station can take years to implement, so consistent support and leadership are critical. If TOD is feasible in the long term, phased placemaking is an option. If the area is not yet ripe for full-scale development, apply low-cost improvements to enhance publicly owned, station-adjacent land in the interim. For example, if stormwater runoff is an issue near the station, designing a community gathering space with green infrastructure can provide short-term benefits.
Sometimes, simply increasing awareness of an area is an effective strategy. In Tysons, Virginia, a pop-up park was created at The Boro, a dense, mixed-use community with access to the DC Metro. Simple interventions like moveable furniture and a painted parking lot provide a backdrop for community events and live music and reinforce the need and desire for public space.
A pop-up park with moveable furniture and painted pavement at The Boro in Tysons, Virginia, brought attention to the D.C. Metro stop by creating inexpensive, temporary public space, and boosted station visibility. Photo courtesy of LandDesign/Denise Retallack.
4. Consider pop-ups — for now
Temporary structures for retail aimed at transit users, like coffee shops and juice bars, can help activate an area while preserving future flexibility for permanent development near the station. Temporary retail uses also can be initiated with significantly lower capital costs.
5. Seek parking flexibility
A key objective of TOD is to reduce car trips, but parking is often an issue. Much has been written about parking requirements and TOD. Because land is often scarce, many communities require structured parking, but that can cost as much as $50,000 a space — more if it's underground. Issues related to structured parking can hold up TOD for years.
If a parking structure is a must, consider ways to shrink its impact and overall footprint. Given limited land availability in Pittsburgh, it was recommended that a new garage be built above an existing bus turnaround. This configuration allows for a shift to first-floor commercial space in the future. As with many TOD recommendations, phasing — and patience — is often key.
Shared parking among uses with different peak times can work in some places. Can parking minimums be reduced or waived altogether? Legislation in some states, including Oregon and California, makes parking optional for locations near high-frequency transit stops.
6. Reconsider zoning and other regulations
If mixed-use development is allowed, is first-floor retail required? Mandated first-floor commercial space can be difficult to implement in mixed-use buildings, and TOD is no different. A carefully considered mix of uses that encourage activity throughout the day and evening should be a strategic focus.
7. Appropriately scale public land
Regional agencies may consider leveraging new TOD by putting to use land occupied by existing park-and-ride spaces, since this land is already publicly owned. However, one-to-one replacement of these spaces can be cost-prohibitive if it requires the construction of vertical parking.
Pittsburgh Regional Transit has looked at other options for this reason. And a study completed for the BART system in San Francisco reveals that the larger benefits of TOD in terms of potential ground rents and increased ridership should be considered before full replacement of park-and-ride spaces is required.
Development trends continue to evolve, but certain planning initiatives endure. Walkability, a mix of uses, and inclusion of public space all make sense near transit stops. How planners go about implementing TOD might be revisited from time to time, but the general principles have been shown to positively influence important planning goals related to sustainability, inclusion, and sense of community.
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES
