TOD Version 2.0: Lessons Learned and      Trends in California TOD   Going to San Bernardino: A Symposium on Intermodal Tr...
Transit-oriented development► Transit-focused   development► Higher densities► Mixed land uses► Interconnected streets and...
TOD Version 1.0► On  fixed rail (BART, San Diego  Trolley, LA rail)► On station property and within  ¼ mile► Vertical mixe...
Version 1.0 Successes► Mature  transit systems and TOD  networks (BART)► Progressive policy support: parking  pricing, des...
Version 1.0 Weaknesses► Use  of inexpensive ROW with poor  integration – TOD/TAD “islands”► Transit connectivity and servi...
What is wrong with this donut hole?
California TOD Study►   Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development    in California (2004)        Comprehensi...
Travel behavior impacts vary…                                     Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus)               ...
TOD Version 2.0► What  can we learn from three decades of  experience?► What will the next generation of TOD look  like?
Best practice - transit service► From Brown and Thompson (2009) study of transit agencies:   Adopt a multidestination vis...
Best practice - land use and       community development► Coordinated  station area planning – transit  agency, local juri...
Trends► Bus and commuter rail TOD► Smart Growth aligns with climate change  agenda (Ewing – Growing Cooler)► Network effec...
Supporting factors► Policy– AB 32, SB 375► Financial – state bond funds► Demography – aging population; work at  home; var...
Hazards/Impediments► Economic     downturn   Pace of development   Land use mix     ►Retailfeasibility     ►Project phas...
Coherent planning frameworks► SACOG   RTP – transit vision► SCAG - Blueprint planning► BART – access plans and  station ar...
Commuter rail TOD► Anaheim        ARTIC multimodal facility     Transition from commuter rail to HSR     Broaden from jo...
Bus TOD► El   Monte Transit Village   Design integration of bus terminal facility   Frequent headways and fast bus trave...
Widen TOD market area with access► Widen  TOD market area with  station access planning (Caltrain)► Walk/bike trips► Subsc...
Development on station property► Replacingcommuter parking with TOD► BART methodology – fiscal analysis► Impact on develop...
Parking regulation, pricing, and            management► On-street parking management  in TOD development areas and  surrou...
Inland Empire Research► Information   on bus and commuter rail TOD   Trip generation, parking demand, transit    demand► ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

LTC, Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference, Going to San Bernardino A Symposium on Intermodal Transit Stations and Transit-Oriented Design, 11/06/2009, Richard Willson

635 views

Published on

Dr. Richard Willson; FAICP; Department of Urban and Regional Planning; Cal Poly Pomona

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
635
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LTC, Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference, Going to San Bernardino A Symposium on Intermodal Transit Stations and Transit-Oriented Design, 11/06/2009, Richard Willson

  1. 1. TOD Version 2.0: Lessons Learned and Trends in California TOD Going to San Bernardino: A Symposium on Intermodal Transit Stations and Transit-Oriented Design Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference Leonard Transportation Center Dr. Richard Willson, FAICP Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
  2. 2. Transit-oriented development► Transit-focused development► Higher densities► Mixed land uses► Interconnected streets and sidewalks► Human scale design► TOD … the intersection of good transit planning and good community development planning
  3. 3. TOD Version 1.0► On fixed rail (BART, San Diego Trolley, LA rail)► On station property and within ¼ mile► Vertical mixed use concepts (Fruitvale Village, Oakland)► Economic challenges related to parking
  4. 4. Version 1.0 Successes► Mature transit systems and TOD networks (BART)► Progressive policy support: parking pricing, design, TDM, etc. (Sacramento)► Integration with preexisting land use/transit strategy (Vancouver, BC)► Pent up demand for high quality, transit-adjacent housing
  5. 5. Version 1.0 Weaknesses► Use of inexpensive ROW with poor integration – TOD/TAD “islands”► Transit connectivity and service frequency► Mixed-use; housing market dynamics► Counter incentives, e.g., free plentiful parking, road expansion
  6. 6. What is wrong with this donut hole?
  7. 7. California TOD Study► Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California (2004)  Comprehensive study of TOD sites throughout California  Lund, Cervero and Willson  Report available on line at http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/► Sites studied:  Light rail: San Diego Trolley, Los Angeles Blue Line, San Jose VTA, Sacramento  Heavy rail: Los Angeles Red Line, BART  Commuter rail: San Diego Coaster, LA Metrolink, Caltrain► Separate study of Pasadena Gold Line► No Inland Empire sites, no BTOD
  8. 8. Travel behavior impacts vary… Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus) 100 90 80 70Total trips (%) 60 44.9 50 37.8 40 26.5 30 17.4 20 13.8 13 5.4 5.8 3.3 6.6 4.2 4.8 10 0 All Residential BART: Pleasant BART: S. LA Metro: Long SD Trolley: Caltrain Sites Hill Alameda Cnty Beach Mission Valley Commuter Surveyed Sites Surrounding City
  9. 9. TOD Version 2.0► What can we learn from three decades of experience?► What will the next generation of TOD look like?
  10. 10. Best practice - transit service► From Brown and Thompson (2009) study of transit agencies:  Adopt a multidestination vision for regional transit;  Use rail transit as the system backbone with high quality connecting bus  Recognize non-CBD travel market; serve regional activity centers, non-work trips  Encourage and ease transfers
  11. 11. Best practice - land use and community development► Coordinated station area planning – transit agency, local jurisdiction► Parking – supply, pricing, management► Vertical mixed use to the extent feasible► Brownfield development/redevelopment► Multimodal accessibility – walk, bike, transit, shuttle, car
  12. 12. Trends► Bus and commuter rail TOD► Smart Growth aligns with climate change agenda (Ewing – Growing Cooler)► Network effects as transit expanded (LA)► Transit service improvements – (OCTA 30 minute service goal; local connectors)► More brownfield sites (outdated retail)
  13. 13. Supporting factors► Policy– AB 32, SB 375► Financial – state bond funds► Demography – aging population; work at home; variety of housing types► Cultural changes re: automobility► Return of traffic congestion (sorry)► Energy prices + climate change regulation
  14. 14. Hazards/Impediments► Economic downturn  Pace of development  Land use mix ►Retailfeasibility ►Project phasing – back to horizontal mixed use?► Community backlash against density  Overselling – area vs. regional congestion  Lesser impacts of suburban TOD► Failure to reform local plans and ordinances
  15. 15. Coherent planning frameworks► SACOG RTP – transit vision► SCAG - Blueprint planning► BART – access plans and station area plans► Caltrain – access policy► LA Metro – Red Line joint development► Anaheim – local plans
  16. 16. Commuter rail TOD► Anaheim ARTIC multimodal facility  Transition from commuter rail to HSR  Broaden from journey to work  Linkage with Platinum Triangle TOD  District-based shared parking potential► Vista Canyon Ranch proposal, Santa Clarita  Relocation of station for optimal design integration  Alignment with pockets of suburban density  Leveraging unmet retail demand
  17. 17. Bus TOD► El Monte Transit Village  Design integration of bus terminal facility  Frequent headways and fast bus travel times to Union Station  Shared parking/pricing  Multi-agency agreements  Affordable housing
  18. 18. Widen TOD market area with access► Widen TOD market area with station access planning (Caltrain)► Walk/bike trips► Subscription shuttles► Neighborhood electric vehicles
  19. 19. Development on station property► Replacingcommuter parking with TOD► BART methodology – fiscal analysis► Impact on development feasibility► MacArthur station case – 600 to 300 commuter spaces
  20. 20. Parking regulation, pricing, and management► On-street parking management in TOD development areas and surrounding neighborhoods► Parking cash out/charges at the workplace► Parking unbundling/charges at residences► Demand-based minimum parking requirements
  21. 21. Inland Empire Research► Information on bus and commuter rail TOD  Trip generation, parking demand, transit demand► IE study of those living near bus and Metrolink service► Study area selection – ideas welcomed

×