1. An Examination of Transit Oriented Development
UP250 Transportation and Land Use
Winter 2015
Taylor
Ryan Sclar
March 12, 2015

2. 1
Introduction
Planners are charged with the task to find answers to the problems inherent in cities.
While the proliferation of the private automobile over the past century has provided people
with newfound accessibility and autonomy, vehicles confound congestion problems, pollute the
air, and encourage sprawl. In response to these negative consequences, planners often aim to
decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT) while concurrently promoting economic development
and increased standards of living.
The concept of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) exemplifies planners strive to rein
in cars and promote higher living ideals. Originally coined by Peter Calthorpe in the late 1980’s,
TOD calls for centering communities on rail stations in an attempt to decrease auto-
dependency and create a sense of
community (Carlton, 2009); (Figure
1). TOD projects aim to channel
urban growth into developments
with compact city centers,
diversities of housing and business
options, mixed-use buildings, and
streets which prioritize active
transportation (such as walking
and cycling); (Loukaitou-Sideris, et. al, 1996). TOD, as well as the sister concepts of new
urbanism and traditional neighborhood development attempt to recreate the classic
neighborhood environments established in the pre-car era.
Figure 1: An Early TOD Design Rendering
Source: Calthorpe, 1993

3. 2
Over the past several years, TOD has become one of the most popular planning
concepts. TOD locations exist, to varying degrees, in practically every major metropolitan region
in the United States as well as internationally. The concept continues to gain popularity and
projects are expanding in number and scope. This report examines how TOD has and has not
come true on its promises to attract people and decrease automobile use. Based on these
findings, this study provides recommendations on how to best guide and design future TOD
projects.
Attracting Residents and Businesses
The Role of the Government
As with other developments, TOD will only be successful if it is economically viable. TOD
projects must financially pencil out if they are to attract residents and especially businesses.
Planners often view rail stations as a catalyst to spur development, however, these transit
centers often fail to promote much activity. Transit lines are commonly built on cheaply
acquired abandoned industrial rail corridors, outside of activity centers (Loukaitou-Sideris, et.
al, 1996). In such cases, “…growth and development around station areas does not simply
happen through the mere presence of a transportation network. (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013, p.
24)” When TOD cannot float on its own, it will only attract people with public investment or
subsidies; low interest loans, tax exempt financing, and rent subsidies may be necessary to
entice people to live and work in a TOD (Loukaitou-Sideris, et. al, 1996). This is particularly
important in attracting residents of lower socioeconomic status. Without the appropriate
financial support new urbanist developments will flounder.

4. 3
In addition to monetary assistance, the government must also provide political support
if a TOD is to draw activity. Many of the features of TOD which set it apart from other
development projects are incongruent with traditional zoning ordinances (National Research
Council). TOD attempts to mimic the urban form of historic neighborhoods, communities which
were constructed with fewer governmental zoning restrictions. To achieve this goal, TOD must
also confine less to such policies. For example, mixed-use variances, increased floor area ratios,
reduced parking minimums, fewer open-space requirements, and higher density allowances all
need to be approved by the government in order to maximize the potential of a TOD to attract
residents and businesses (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013). In areas where TOD is opposed by
neighborhood organizations or not backed by regional policy, this necessary government
support can be difficult to achieve (National Research Council). Under such circumstances, TOD
diminishes its advantages over standard development and thus attracts fewer residents and
businesses.
Demographic Selection
Most scholars agree that self-selection bias in housing and office preferences exists, but
its extent and influence on TOD is debated. Residents in TOD communities do drive less and
walk more than average (Handy, et. al, 2005). Some argue however, that this correlation chiefly
exists because residents who decide to live in TOD communities want to drive less and walk
more. According to Levine, 1999, not only is self-selection a factor in attracting people to TOD,
but it is the “prime process” in doing so (Levine, 1999, p. 19). Others disagree, conceding that
self-selection bias does occur, but stating that its role is minimal and doesn’t thwart the

5. 4
purpose of TOD (Chatman, 2009); (Crane, 1998). If preferences do play a large role, the utility of
TODs may be minimal, since the majority of Americans prefer to reside in single-family,
suburban environments (Gordon, et. al, 1997).
TODs may only attract new residents and businesses at the expense of existing tenants
and shops. Developers sometimes hesitate to invest in TODs because of the perception of a
narrow market, served primarily by young urban professionals and urbanistas, not mainstream
families (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013). New urban developments often furnish high rents, which can
force out smaller businesses and poorer residents. In some cases, if poorer residents without
automobile access are replaced by higher income individuals, TOD can actually have a negative
impact on local business activity (Kahn, 2007). The aims of TOD to influence the built
environment of a neighborhood can also impact its demographic makeup.
Influencing Travel
The role of the Built Environment
Streetscapes promoted by TOD encourage active transportation. The number one factor
influencing pedestrian activity is the state of the built environment. Areas which are clean, with
diverse housing, sufficient shade, outward facing businesses, limited lot lines, and few parking
lots attract more pedestrian activity (Handy, et. al, 2005). “All else equal, people walk more if
they move to a more attractive neighborhood. (Handy, et. al, 2005, p. 20)” These features also
promote more bicycling, although to a smaller extent. TOD street design can be very successful
in increasing pedestrian and bicycle activity.

6. 5
While TOD promotes walking and bicycling trips, it has negligible influence on vehicle
use. It may seem intuitive that more biking and walking correspond to less driving. There is,
however, no credible evidence which supports this claim. In fact, Chatman, 2008, concluded
that policies which promote walking have no independent effect on reducing driving in TODs.
The details of a streetscape are much more important in attracting pedestrians than they are in
discouraging drivers (Handy, et. al, 2005).
Not only does streetscape design have no effect on driving trends, attempts to improve
connectivity in TOD street patterns can actually increase VMT. Connected streets bring origins
and destinations closer together (National Research Council). While this encourages active
transportation, it also makes streets more accessible for automobile travel. “Shorter car trips
can mean more trips and more miles. (Crane, 1998, p. 6)” When examined independently, the
built environment of TODs does not reduce VMT and may actually increase it in some cases.
TOD and Public Transit
Proximity to rail
access is a hallmark of
TOD, but not a
particularly influential
factor in determining
travel behavior. TOD
sometimes promotes
transit stations as the
Figure 2: A TOD Rail station with no passengers in Phoenix
Source: www.valleymetro.org

7. 6
glue which binds the community together. Like churches in medieval cities, transit stations are
at the center of TOD neighborhoods - a sacred and crucial node for community vitality and
activity. While it is true that residents in TOD developments tend to own fewer cars and take
more multimodal trips, little of this can be explained by the presence of a rail station (Chatman,
2013). In fact, vehicle ownership rates depend more on parking availability, dwelling sizes, and
even bus service, than on access to a rail station (Chatman, 2013). Rail service only provides
adequate service for trips which originate and end within close proximity to a station. When a
rail line is successful in connecting areas with densities of jobs and people it will attract more
riders (Guerra, et. al, 2013). As described above, rail lines are often built on the right of ways of
abandoned freight tracks, through areas of industrial zoning with little residential or
commercial liveliness (Loukaitou-Sideris, et. al, 1996). Even when rail is successful in connecting
centers of activity, the number of destinations is still limited, especially in polycentric cities with
diverse origins and destinations. Most of the potential benefits of TOD do not stem from
proximity to a rail station.
TOD and Automobiles
There is a complicated relationship between TOD and vehicle usage. Residents of old,
traditional neighborhoods drive 18% fewer miles than their suburban counterparts (Handy, et.
al, 2005). “People who live in densely-developed, transit-served neighborhoods with shops and
services near their homes tend to… own and use autos less…” (Chatman, 2009, p. 4) The
essence of TOD is to emulate these dense, transit rich, lively neighborhood environments of the
tradition communities as described above. Studies show, however, that TOD often fails to

8. 7
decrease vehicle usage, and sometimes VMT can even increase (Crane, 1998); (Chatman, 2013).
When it comes to automobiles, there commonly exists a disconnect between the aims and
outcomes of these new urbanism projects.
Density in TODs does play a role in curtailing driving habits, but its influence is limited.
High density is often viewed as the answer to making roads less conducive to driving (Crane,
1998). It is true that the creation of high-density development without a concurrent change in
transportation infrastructure will increase congestion and driving costs (Loukatiou-Sideris,
2013). In many TODs, however, density is accompanied by road network capacity
improvements as mandated through LOS standards and minimum parking requirements. Under
such policies, an increase
in density does not
correspond strongly with
a drop in vehicle usage.
A 100% increase in
residential density may
only lower household
VMT by 5% to 12%
(National Research
Council). Even in an area
with strong TOD features, it is unlikely that doubling density will result in more than a 25%
reduction in VMT.
Figure 3: Wilshire Blvd. – An example of high density with high VMT
Source: www.thewilshirecorridorblog.com

9. 8
For TOD to decrease vehicular travel, driving must be made slow and expensive. Travel
mode is most fundamentally influenced by time and price (Okitsu, et. al, 2014). When policies
promote free off-street parking and mandate congestion mitigation, vehicle travel is fast and
cheap. This encourages people to drive. Even when TOD features compact city centers, bicycle
infrastructure, easy transit access, and pedestrian prioritized streets many residents will still
elect to drive if vehicle travel is made easy. Simply put, it is lowering the utility of driving, not
raising the utility of driving alternatives which is most influential in decreasing automobile
usage (Loukatiou-Sideris, 2013).
TOD will also only reduce automobile traffic if origins and destinations are matched
within proximity to each other. Regardless of road speeds and driving prices, residents are
more likely to drive when traveling farther distances (Chatman, 2008). For TOD projects, local
trips to run errands may be advantageous without a vehicle, but accessing large retail and
employment centers will likely still require driving. In suburban settings, many of the trips taken
by residents in TODs may require long automobile trips. In fact, Chatman, 2008, finds a strong
correlation between VMT and proximity to the city center. TOD in outlying areas of a city may
produce more VMT than urban infill TOD, even if they produce fewer trips (Chatman, 2008).
Even well planned TODs will not reduce VMT unless destinations are close together and
accessible by alternative transportation modes.

10. 9
Recommendations
Based on the findings above, the following acknowledgments must be considered when
examining the viability of a TOD project:
 TOD must have proper financial backing to attract activity
o TOD must pencil out if it is to attract developers, residents and businesses. When
necessary, local governments must be willing to offer economic incentives to spur
activity.
 TOD must be supported by congruent land use and zoning policies in order to truly fulfill its
aim at creating traditional neighborhood environments
o If policies require minimum parking, congestion mitigation, density limitations, land
use separations, and building setbacks, TOD will not be able to curtail driving and
recreate the environment necessary to promote lively streets.
 Transit ridership is often increased in by TOD, but not always, and not because it is centered
around a transit station
o In order for TOD to promote transit ridership it must be linked to service which
connects to a diverse range of destinations. Rail service often only connects with
limited coverage areas, especially when traveling on old freight rights of ways which
do not lie adjacent to activity centers.

11. 10
 TOD does promote active transportation but will not independently decrease vehicle use
o The built environment promoted through TOD concepts does attract more
pedestrian and bicycling activity, however it does little to affect the utility of driving.
 TOD will be much more successful in attracting people and decreasing automobile use if
integrated with surrounding urban environment
o TOD developments do not provide access to all of the services and amenities which
are required by residents. Therefore, people who live in TOD will commonly need to
leave the development to access jobs, commercial centers, and recreational
facilitates. If TOD is not well connected with the rest of the region, it will attract less
people and require longer, more auto-dependent trips.
 The most effective way for TOD to decrease automobile use is to make driving slow and
expensive
o TOD developments will not reduce driving if they provide ample free parking and
uncongested streets.

12. 11
Conclusion
As with many other aspects of planning, there is no cookie cutter model for producing
successful TOD. While it is true that few TOD developments realized all of the goals they aspire
to achieve, few have also proven to be complete failures. Analysis of the literature
surrounding TODs suggests some crucial elements which are necessary and often overlooked in
creating effective communities. For Southern California, particularly Los Angeles (with the
highest density of any American urbanized area) TOD projects can benefit from relatively high
density and proximity to locations which already exists near some of the region’s rail stations.
TOD, however, is not a concept which can be implemented everywhere, not even at many
transit stations. If planners can learn from the successes and mistakes of previous projects, TOD
can still be promoted as a power tool for creating activity centers and decreasing automobile
use.

13. 12
Bibliography
Calthorpe, Peter. The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream.
Princeton Architectural Press, 1993.
Carlton, Ian. Histories of Transit-oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the
TOD Concept: Real Estate and Transit, Urban and Social Movements, Concept
Protagonist. University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
2009.
Chatman, Daniel G. "Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity and price effects
on household non-work travel." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42.7
(2008): 1008-1030.
Chatman, Daniel G. "Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail
access." Journal of the American Planning Association 79.1 (2013): 17-31.
Chatman, Daniel G. "Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: evidence
using new data and methods." Environment and planning. A41.5 (2009): 1072.
Crane, Randall. "Travel by design?." ACCESS Magazine 1.12 (1998).
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. "Are compact cities a desirable planning
goal?." Journal of the American planning association 63.1 (1997): 95-106.
Guerra, Erick, and Robert Cervero. "Is a Half-Mile Circle the Right Standard for TODs?." ACCESS
Magazine (2013).
Handy, Susan, and Patricia Mokhtarian. "Which Comes First: The Neighbourhood or The
Walking?." ACCESS Magazine 1.26 (2005).
Kahn, Matthew E. "Gentrification Trends in New Transit‐Oriented Communities: Evidence from
14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems." Real Estate Economics 35.2
(2007): 155-182.
Levine, Jonathan. "Access to choice." ACCESS Magazine 1.14 (1999).
Loukatiou-Sideris, Anastasia. "Opportunities and Challeneges for TODs in Southern
California." ACCESS Magazine (2013).
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. "There's No There There: or why
neighborhoods don't readily develop near light-rail transit stations." Access9 (1996).

14. 13
National Research Council. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact
Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences. (2009).
Okitsu, Walter, Gibson, Patrick. “C&EE 181 Lecture 3a Traffic Control Devices.” UCLA. Oct.
2014.