Transit-Oriented Development
Kyler Massner (author), Jonathan Rosenbloom & Christopher Duerksen (editors)INTRODUCTION
Transit-oriented developments (TOD) represent a variety of methods and strategies to shape and encourage development around public transportation hubs.[1] TODs seek to leverage the benefits of public transportation in a desire to create compact, walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods along transit hubs while reducing reliance on automobiles.[2] A TOD ordinance can operate by either creating incentives or requiring particular types of development around transit hubs. Incentive-based ordinances provide a number of benefits to developers, such as density, area or height bonuses, if the development complies with certain requirements.[3] In contrast, zoning codes can also require that developments meet certain requirements before development may begin. Requirements such as mixed-use minimums, density minimums, and maximum limits on available parking, must be achieved if the development is located within a designated TOD district.[4] Both incentive-based and mandatory systems each have benefits.[5] Mandatory programs are easier to control and allow for more predictive outcomes, while incentive-based systems can be broadly applied and sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of a particular circumstance.[6]
EFFECTS
Local governments can implement TOD districts to create areas around public transit stations, which encourage individuals to fulfill the majority, if not all, of their daily needs without the use of automobiles. Any need not immediately accessible within the TOD district should be easily satisfied by use of the transit system, where the need can then be fulfilled by riding to the adjacent TOD district. Since individuals can rely on public transit for their daily commutes and everyday needs, TOD’s have the ability to reduce automobile traffic by encouraging individuals to either walk, bike, or use public transportation.[7] Since TOD’s reduce the need of automobiles, the result is less traffic and less Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, particularly when compared to development produced by conventional Euclidian zoning.[8] For example, a case study of a TOD in Phoenix, AZ, found that there was a long-term decrease in GHG emissions due to decreased reliance on vehicles as a result of the TOD.[9] Additional studies have found that TODs have a positive impact on public health because of the convenience of the pedestrian lifestyle.[10]
EXAMPLES
Chicago, IL
Chicago began its TOD program in 2013 and expanded it in 2015. The program seeks to encourage developments within a specified radius of a transit hub by offering incentives to developers who choose to build there.[11] Chief among these incentives is the allowance of fewer parking spaces than the typical minimum and an increase in the permitted floor area ratio.[12] The Chicago ordinance allows for a 100% reduction in required parking if the new TOD development is located within 1,320 feet of a rail station.[13] This allows the developer greater flexibility when utilizing the space by removing impediments to development and increasing the area in which developers can choose to use. These types of financial incentives not only provide a benefit to the developer, but also stimulate development around transit hubs. By eliminating required parking, space is made available for other mixed uses that can occupy the space, thereby facilitating the purpose of the TOD.
To view the provision, see Chicago, IL, Zoning Code §§ 17-3-0403-B (2018); 17-10-0102-B (2018).
Bloomington, MN
Bloomington’s zoning code seeks to encourage high intensity mixed-use areas close to transit services. Bloomington’s ordinance is notable as it combines elements of both minimum requirements and incentive-based development practices. The ordinance requires that only principle uses that seek to advance a pedestrian orientated lifestyle and increase transit efficiency, such as apartment buildings, hotels, office space, and recreationally-oriented spaces, are permitted in the district.[14] Developers in the TOD district are incentivized to provide high intensity, pedestrian oriented developments by receiving an increase in the maximum floor area ratio if certain criteria are met.[15] For example, developers that include a publicly accessible park can increase the floor area in a 1:1 ratio for each square foot of publicly accessible park.[16] In addition, developments which include retail and service space can qualify for up to a 50% bonus of square footage, while developments that allow for below grade parking can have up to a 75% bonus.[17] Encouraging high intensity development removes barriers to pedestrian traffic by increasing the amount of walkable area within the district. The removal of these barriers not only promotes foot traffic for local business, but also reduces automobile traffic and associated GHG emissions.
To view the provision, see Bloomington, MN, Code of Ordinances § 19.29 (2018).
ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES
City of Los Angeles, CA, Code of Ordinances §§ 12.22(25) (2008); 13.09(E) (1998); 13.07 (1992) (encourages affordable housing within TODs by providing developers with height, density, and parking flexibility). See also, Transit Oriented Communities Affordable Housing Incentive Program Guidelines
Austin, TX, Ordinance No. 20050519-008 (2005) (establishes different classification of mandatory TOD districts dependent on the district’s location and role in the transit system).
San Francisco, CA, Planning Code § 209.4 (2017) (establishes TOD with specific density and parking requirements that are designed to be used near transit stations).
South Miami, FL, Land Development Code §20-8.1 (1997) (establishes TOD limiting drive thru business, requiring 70% onsite parking and a devotion of 75% of first floor wall space to windows aimed at generating pedestrian interest).
Model TOD ordinance (report from a nonprofit organization that includes case studies and a model ordinance).
Model TOD ordinance II, p.123 of PDF (Clarion Associates model ordinance for the Sustainable Land Use Code Project, Capitol Region Council of Governments).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
TOD Case Studies (report from the EPA that includes case studies).
Suzanne Rhees, Transit-Oriented Development from Policy to Reality, crplaning.com, https://perma.cc/W6NQ-PJLD (last visited June 2, 2017).
Urban Land Institute, Fiscal Impacts of Transit-Oriented Projects, uli.org, https://perma.cc/HQ22-ZQUB (last visited June 15, 2017).
City of Des Moines, Comprehensive Plan, dmgov.org, 13, 28, https://perma.cc/77UF-7MGZ (2016) (sets goals that integrate transit-oriented development in as a priority for both transit and land use planning).
CITATIONS
[1] Ray Hutchison, Encyclopedia of Urban Studies, 823 (2010); Adrienne Schmitz & Jason Scully, Creating Walkable Places: Compact Mixed-Use Solutions, 26-28 (2006).
[2] Hutchison, supra note 1, 823
[3] See, e.g., Chicago, Ill., Zoning Code § 17-10-0102-B (2017); Bloomington, Minn., City Code § 19.29 (2018).
[4] See, e.g., Los Angeles County, CA, Ordinance No. 2005-0011; Austen TX, Ordinance No. 20050519-008.
[5] Hutchison, supra note 1, 823; Schmitz, supra note 1, 26-27.
[6] Hutchison, supra note 1, 823; Schmitz, supra note 1, 26-27.
[7] Jan Gehl, Cities for People, 107-09 (2010).
[8] Jan Gehl, Cities for People, 107-09 (2010); Mikhail Chester & Dwarakanath Ravikumar, Transit-Oriented Development Deployment Strategies to Maximize Integrated Transportation and Land Use Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Proc. ISSST v1 (2013).
[9]Mikhail Chester & Dwarakanath Ravikumar, Transit-Oriented Development Deployment Strategies to Maximize Integrated Transportation and Land Use Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Proc. ISSST v1 (2013).
[10] Schmitz, supra note 1, 26-27; John Pucher et al., Walking and Cycling to Health: a Comparative Analysis of City, State, and International Data, 100 American Journal of Public Health 1986, 1990-1991 (2010).
[11] Chicago, Ill., Zoning Code §§ 17-3-0403-B, 17-10-0102-B (2017).
[12] Id.
[13] Chicago, Ill., Zoning Code § 17-10-0102-B (2017).
[14] Bloomington, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 19.29(b) (2018).
[15] Id. § 19.29(f)(1), § 19.29(g)(4).
[16] Id. § 19.29(g)(4)(C).
[17] Id. § 19.29(g)(4)(A)-(B).