LESSONS LEARNED FROM TOD PROJECTSGregg Logan, Melina Duggal | November 2010
DEFINING TOD       Mixed–use community (e.g. residential, retail, office, civic, park) within        +/- 2000-ft walk to ...
PROPERTY VALUESNEW TRANSIT DRIVES INVESTMENT, INCREASES PROPERTY VALUESOriginal cost:$54MCatalyzed Investment:$3.8BMultipl...
PROPERTY VALUESVALUE CURVE FROM TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT    Research shows average value increases of    between 5% and 45% and...
TOD DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES    •    Multiple property owners with different interests    •    Difficult and costly property...
DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITYMARKET, PRODUCTS, FINANCIAL, FISCAL, ECONOMIC     •  Land Area: How much land, what are the opport...
CASE STUDYEXPERIENCE IN CHARLOTTE •  Projects:    •  Provision of Market and Economic Guidance into Allocations of Future ...
DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITYWHAT HAVE WE LEARNED •  All TODs are not the same •  Market potential around stations is still mar...
CHARLOTTE EXAMPLESOURCE: CATS                     8
CHARLOTTE EXAMPLESOURCE: CATS                     9
CHARLOTTE EXAMPLESOURCE: CATS                     10
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN –NOT FOR THE INEXPERIENCED Public Partner:                                 Private Partner: •    Res...
IMPACT OF TRANSIT COULD HAVE MORE IMPACT ON  ENERGY SAVINGS THAN “GREEN BUILDING”  Growth in Land Consumption Exceeds Popu...
RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCEProjectCHARLOTTE LRT STATION AREA ANALYSES – FOURCORRIDORSCharlotte, North Carolina• Identifi...
RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCEProjectCITY OF ATLANTA AND THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPIDTRANSIT AUTHORITY (MARTA)Atlanta, Ge...
RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCEProjectORLANDO AND TAMPA REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERSANALYSIS“CONNECTING FOR GLOBAL COMPETITIV...
SUMMARY – TOD IS RESHAPING URBAN AREASWHILE COMPLEX, A RICH AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT                       16
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Transit Oriented Development

617 views

Published on

Some lessons learned from our work in TOD as well as some case study examples.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
617
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transit Oriented Development

  1. 1. LESSONS LEARNED FROM TOD PROJECTSGregg Logan, Melina Duggal | November 2010
  2. 2. DEFINING TOD   Mixed–use community (e.g. residential, retail, office, civic, park) within +/- 2000-ft walk to transit stop   Walkable environment   Convenient for multimodal travel for residents and employees Lindbergh City Center TOD: 30- acre mixed-use development in Atlanta; transit components include intermodal transfers to bus, taxi, and kiss ride; two bus facilities, MARTA station modifications, transit police facility, parking facilities. A functional urban community that promotes the use of mass transit. Phase One 270,000 SF / 160 units of condominiums and apartments, 120,000 SF / 300 room hotel, 1,200,000 SF of office space and 330,000 SF of retail space. Pedestrian and transportation connections and the integration of public greenspace. A place to live, work, shop and be entertained in a pedestrian-scaled, urban environment. Pictured: Lindbergh MARTA Station and TOD, Atlanta Georgia RCLCO worked with the City of Atlanta, MARTA, and BellSouth on the development 1
  3. 3. PROPERTY VALUESNEW TRANSIT DRIVES INVESTMENT, INCREASES PROPERTY VALUESOriginal cost:$54MCatalyzed Investment:$3.8BMultiplier: 74XSOURCE: Reconnecting America 2
  4. 4. PROPERTY VALUESVALUE CURVE FROM TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Research shows average value increases of between 5% and 45% and more. 3
  5. 5. TOD DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES •  Multiple property owners with different interests •  Difficult and costly property acquisition / assembly •  Cost / integration of structured parking •  Often substantial infrastructure requirements •  Environmental site issues need cleanup •  Local opposition to density  Long-term, complicated, often controversial requires collaboration between public and private sector 4
  6. 6. DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITYMARKET, PRODUCTS, FINANCIAL, FISCAL, ECONOMIC •  Land Area: How much land, what are the opportunities and constraints (topo, access, environmental, improvements, …)? •  Market Demand: Based on economic/demographic outlook, competitive picture, what is the unmet demand for space (residential, retail, office, hospitality, industrial, …)? •  Financial Feasibility: How do projected revenues stack up against development costs, what subsidies are required, what impact can be expected on land values relative to current values? •  Fiscal and Economic Impact: Considering higher tax revenues but also higher cost of public services, what is the net fiscal impact (benefit) over the next 10, 20, 30 years relative to what’s there? How many jobs will be created? •  Program and Phasing: How do market demand and financial feasibility translate into a logical program and phasing plan for the next 10, 20, 30 years? 5
  7. 7. CASE STUDYEXPERIENCE IN CHARLOTTE •  Projects: •  Provision of Market and Economic Guidance into Allocations of Future Growth in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina for the Charlotte Department of Transportation •  Long-term transportation planning, helping Charlotte DOT) was understand the share of future growth that could be shifted over the next 25 years, via proactive policies, to locations more easily served by mass transportation corridors, and existing transportation infrastructure. December 2004. •  Market and Build-out Analysis for the Third and Fourth Ward for the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Planning Commission and Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) •  Provided market guidance relative to the Third and Fourth Ward neighborhoods in context of the planned Multi-Modal Station (MMS) between these two urban neighborhoods and the need to plan appropriately around the station. December 2004. •  Charlotte North Corridor TOD Station Analysis for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission and CATS •  Provided market guidance into future development potential at each station area along the planned North Corridor Light Rail Transit line. •  Assisted in selections of alternative station(s) or corridor alignment(s) opportunities as well as assisted planners and other government entities in planning long-term for development around each station location. January 2006. 6
  8. 8. DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITYWHAT HAVE WE LEARNED •  All TODs are not the same •  Market potential around stations is still market-driven •  E.g. retail still needs good auto access •  More successful in the “favored” corridor of growth •  Certain land uses are more compatible with TOD than others •  However, TOD can change demographic and market patterns •  Pricing premiums for office and residential uses •  Reduced parking – cost saving possibilities •  High public sector expectations versus difficulty to serve all target markets •  Station design and integration •  Policies are not always in place that would allow for TOD-style development 7
  9. 9. CHARLOTTE EXAMPLESOURCE: CATS 8
  10. 10. CHARLOTTE EXAMPLESOURCE: CATS 9
  11. 11. CHARLOTTE EXAMPLESOURCE: CATS 10
  12. 12. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN –NOT FOR THE INEXPERIENCED Public Partner: Private Partner: •  Resolve land assembly •  Apply real estate experience •  Acquire/contribute land •  Take development risk •  Get sites development ready •  Fund development •  Secure infrastructure funding   TIF (property, sales, hotel tax) •  Construct buildings   CFD/BID •  Lease/sell space   Parking revenue bonds •  Operate properties   Government leases •  Accelerated entitlement – “greentaping” •  Continued public involvement •  Invest in placemaking: landscaping, lighting, signage •  Manage partnerships with private sector •  Assist with property management •  Programming 11
  13. 13. IMPACT OF TRANSIT COULD HAVE MORE IMPACT ON ENERGY SAVINGS THAN “GREEN BUILDING” Growth in Land Consumption Exceeds Population Growth in Metro Areas with Population > 1 million 1950-1990 34 Metro Areas 245% 92% Atlanta 973% 325% Washington 431% 161% Baltimore 290% 63% Philadelphia 273% 45% Cincinnati 251% Urbanized Area Growth 49% St. Louis 219% Pop. Growth 39% Pittsburgh 206% 10% Detroit 165% 34% Boston 158% 24% New York 137% 31% Buffalo 133% 7% Chicago 124% 38% Cleveland 112% 21% 0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000% 1200%SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the InteractionsBetween Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality 12
  14. 14. RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCEProjectCHARLOTTE LRT STATION AREA ANALYSES – FOURCORRIDORSCharlotte, North Carolina• Identified development potential for each station area along four corridors planned for LRT, BRT, and potential commuter rail• Evaluated land use intensities and potential development timing for station areasHOUSTON INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITYHouston, Texas• Worked with the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston Metro) and Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects (EEK)• Envisioned and tested the market and financial feasibility of the development program for the future hub of Houston transit• Helped create a deal structure that would be beneficial to all, taking into account available public financing mechanisms and the qualitative needs of each of the parties 13
  15. 15. RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCEProjectCITY OF ATLANTA AND THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPIDTRANSIT AUTHORITY (MARTA)Atlanta, Georgia• Worked for the City of Atlanta, MARTA, & developer CARTER• Created an economic, land use and development plan for the area around the Lindbergh MARTA station• Conducted economic analysis, examining economic conditions and Lindbergh’s role relative to economic growth trends; development programDC STREETCARWashington, D.C• Projected the outcome of implementing a streetcar by analyzing the effects of transit investment to the New York Avenue Metro Station in D.C, the Portland, OR Streetcar, and the Seattle, WA Streetcar• Studied economic growth in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA, and applied property value percentage increases to properties along the proposed H Street streetcar corridor in Washington, D.C. 14
  16. 16. RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCEProjectORLANDO AND TAMPA REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERSANALYSIS“CONNECTING FOR GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT”Central Florida• Completed a Metro Center analysis for all of Central Florida• Understood regional growth trends and how they impact the location of future jobs• Analyzed the impact of transit on potential future Metro CoresINTERNATIONAL CORPORATE PARK AND INNOVATION WAYOrange County, Florida•  Studied impact of future commuter, light rail, and BRT• Quantified potential impact of transit• Programmed communities based upon future transit opportunities• Analysis of DOT requirements for TOD and their impact• Considered the impact of an MMTD on the projects 15
  17. 17. SUMMARY – TOD IS RESHAPING URBAN AREASWHILE COMPLEX, A RICH AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT 16

×